No matter how many excellent books and articles about Nicholas II and the Royal Family are published, which are documented studies of professional historians, no matter how many documentaries and broadcasts are made, many for some reason remain true to the negative assessment of both the personality of the Tsar and his state activities.

***

On August 20, 2000, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, in the presence of the heads and representatives of all Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, the glorification of the Royal Family took place in full force. The deed on the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century reads: "To glorify the Imperial Family as martyrs in the host of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia: the Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely strived to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

There are no grounds for revising the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), however, discussions in Russian society about whether to consider the last Emperor of the Russian Empire as a saint continue to this day. Statements that, they say, the Russian Orthodox Church was “mistaken” in classifying Nicholas II and his family as saints are far from uncommon. The arguments of opponents of the holiness of the last Sovereign of the Russian Empire are based on typical myths, mostly created by Soviet historiography, and sometimes by outright antagonists of Orthodoxy and independent Russia as a great power.

No matter how many excellent books and articles about Nicholas II and the Royal Family are published, which are documented studies of professional historians, no matter how many documentaries and broadcasts are made, many for some reason remain true to the negative assessment of both the personality of the Tsar and his state activities. Ignoring new scientific historical discoveries, such people stubbornly continue to attribute to Nicholas II a "weak, weak-willed character" and inability to lead the state, accuse him of the tragedy of Bloody Sunday and the executions of workers, of defeat in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. and involvement of Russia in the First World War; it all ends with the accusation of the Church that she canonized the Royal Family as saints, and the threat that she, the Russian Orthodox Church, "will still regret this."

Some accusations are frankly naive, if not ridiculous, for example: "during the reign of Nicholas II, so many people died and a war was waged" (are there periods in history when no one died? Or were wars fought only under the last Emperor? Why are there no comparisons of statistical indicators with other periods of Russian history?). Other accusations testify to the extreme ignorance of their authors, who build their conclusions on the basis of tabloid literature such as A. Bushkov’s books, E. Radzinsky’s pseudo-historical novels, or, in general, some dubious Internet articles by unknown authors who consider themselves nugget historians. I would like to draw the attention of the readers of Pravoslavny Vestnik to the need to be critical of this kind of literature, which is signed, if signed at all, by unknown people with an incomprehensible profession, education, outlook, mental and even more so spiritual health.

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, its leadership consists of people not only capable of thinking logically, but also possessing deep humanitarian and natural science knowledge, including professional secular diplomas in various specialties, so do not rush to allegations of "misconceptions "The Russian Orthodox Church and see in the Orthodox hierarchs some kind of religious fanatics, "far from real life."

This article contains a number of the most common myths that could be found in the old textbooks of the Soviet period and which, despite their complete groundlessness, are still repeated in the mouths of some people due to their unwillingness to get acquainted with new studies of modern science. After each myth, brief arguments for refutation are given, which, at the request of the editors, were decided not to be burdened with numerous cumbersome references to historical documents, since the volume of the article is very limited, and Pravoslavny Vestnik, after all, does not apply to historical and scientific publications; however, the interested reader himself will easily find indications of sources in any scientific work, especially since there have been a huge number of them lately.

Myth 1

Tsar Nicholas II was a gentle and kind family man, an intellectual who received a good education, a skillful interlocutor, but an irresponsible and absolutely unsuitable person for such a high position. They were pushed around by his wife Alexandra Feodorovna, a German by nationality, and since 1907 by the elder Grigory Rasputin, who exerted unlimited influence on the tsar, dismissed and appointed ministers and military leaders.

If we read the memoirs of the contemporaries of Emperor Nicholas II, Russians and foreigners, which, of course, were not published during the years of Soviet power and were not translated into Russian, then we come across a description of Nicholas II as a kind, generous, but far from weak person. For example, French President Emile Loubet (1899-1806) believed that under the apparent timidity of the king had a strong soul and a courageous heart, as well as always well thought out plans, the implementation of which was slowly achieved. Nicholas II possessed the strength of character necessary for the difficult royal service, moreover, according to Metropolitan of Moscow (since 1943 - Patriarch) Sergius (1867-1944), through anointing to the Russian throne, he was given an invisible strength from above, acting to exalt his royal valor. Many circumstances and events of his life prove that the Emperor had a strong will, which made his contemporaries who knew him closely believe that "the Emperor had an iron hand, and many were only deceived by the velvet glove put on it."

Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and education, all his life he felt like a military man, which affected his psychology and many things in his life. The sovereign, as the Supreme Commander of the Russian army, himself, without the influence of any "good geniuses", made absolutely all the important decisions that contributed to victorious actions.

The opinion according to which the Russian army was led by Alekseev, and the Tsar was at the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of pro forma, is completely unfounded, which is refuted by telegrams from Alekseev himself.

As for the relationship of the Royal Family with Grigory Rasputin, without going into the details of the extremely ambiguous assessments of the latter's activities, there is no reason to see in these relations signs of any dependence or spiritual charm of the Royal Family. Even the Extraordinary Investigation Commission of the Provisional Government, which consisted of liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Sovereign, the dynasty and the monarchy as such, was forced to admit that G. Rasputin had no influence on the public life of the country.

Myth 2

Unsuccessful state and church policy of the Emperor. In defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. It is the Emperor who is to blame, who failed to ensure the effectiveness and combat capability of the Russian army and navy. With his stubborn unwillingness to carry out the necessary economic and political reforms, as well as to engage in dialogue with representatives of Russian citizens of all classes, the emperor "caused" the revolution of 1905-1907, which, in turn, led to the strongest destabilization of Russian society and the state system. He also dragged Russia into the First World War, in which he was defeated.

In fact, under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity, on the eve of the First World War, its economy prospered and grew at the fastest pace in the world. For 1894-1914 the state budget of the country grew 5.5 times, the gold reserves - 3.7 times, the Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world. At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. The overall growth of the Russian economy, even in the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%. Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia before and after the revolution, believed that the Russian monarchy was the most progressive government in Europe.

The emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese war. One of his most significant acts was the revival of the Russian fleet, which happened against the will of military officials, but saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that he, under incredibly difficult conditions, brought Russia to the threshold of victory in the First World War, however, his opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold. General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into Poltava victors. The last Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half, but his work was appreciated by both enemies and between the Sovereign and his Army and the victory "became a revolution". The military talents of the Sovereign were fully revealed in the post of Supreme Commander. Russia definitely began to win the war when the triumphal year of 1916 of the Brusilov breakthrough came, with the plan of which many military leaders did not agree, and on which it was the Sovereign who insisted.

It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the performance of the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty and did everything in his power: he managed to suppress the terrible power of the 1905 revolution and delay the triumph of the "demons" for as much as 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Being already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.

With regard to the Church policy of the Emperor, it must be taken into account that it did not go beyond the framework of the traditional synodal system of governing the Church, and it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that the church hierarchy, which had previously been officially silent for two centuries on the issue of convening the Council, received the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but and practically prepare the convocation of the Local Council.

Myth 3

On the day of the Emperor's coronation on May 18, 1896, more than a thousand people died and more than a thousand were seriously injured during the distribution of gifts in a stampede on the Khodynskoye field, in connection with which Nicholas II received the nickname "Bloody". On January 9, 1905, a peaceful demonstration of workers protesting against living and working conditions was shot down (96 people were killed, 330 were injured); On April 4, 1912, the Lena execution of workers who protested against the 15-hour working day took place (270 people were killed, 250 were injured). Conclusion: Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people and especially hated the workers.

The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of power and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, i.e. in just 17 years, it amounted to a fantastic figure of 50.5 million people. Since then, according to statistics, Russia has lost and continues to lose an average of about 1 million deaths a year, plus those who died as a result of numerous actions organized by the government, plus abortions, murdered children, the number of which in the 21st century exceeded one and a half million a year. In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles a month with the cost of bread 3-5 kopecks, 1 kg of beef - 30 kopecks, 1 kg of potatoes - 1.5 kopecks, and income tax - 1 ruble per year (the lowest in the world) which made it possible to support a large family.

From 1894 to 1914 the public education budget increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher schools - by 180%, secondary schools - by 227%, women's gymnasiums - by 420%, public schools - by 96%. In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually. The Russian Empire experienced the heyday of cultural life. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.

The blame for the tragic events of Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre, of course, cannot be placed directly on the Emperor. The cause of the stampede on the Khodynka field was ... greed. A rumor swept through the crowd that the bartenders were distributing gifts among "their own", and therefore there would not be enough gifts for everyone, as a result of which the people rushed to the temporary wooden buildings with such force that even 1800 police officers specially assigned to maintain order during the festivities could not were able to withstand the pressure.

According to recent studies, the events of January 9, 1905 were a provocation organized by the Social Democrats in order to put certain political demands into the mouths of the workers and create the impression of popular protest against the existing government. On January 9, workers from the Putilov factory with icons, banners and royal portraits set off in procession to Palace Square, overflowing with joy and performing prayer chants to meet with their Sovereign and bow to him. A meeting with him was promised to them by the socialist organizers, although the latter knew perfectly well that the Tsar was not in St. Petersburg, on the evening of January 8 he left for Tsarskoe Selo.

People gathered in the square at the appointed hour and waited for the Tsar to come out to meet them. Time passed, the Sovereign did not appear, and tension and excitement began to grow among the people. Unexpectedly, the provocateurs began to shoot at the gendarmes from the attics of houses, gates and other shelters. The gendarmes returned fire, panic and stampede arose among the people, as a result of which, according to various estimates, from 96 to 130 people were killed, from 299 to 333 people were injured. The sovereign was deeply shocked by the news of "Bloody Sunday". He ordered to allocate 50,000 rubles for benefits to the families of the victims, as well as to convene a commission to clarify the needs of the workers. Thus, the Tsar could not order the execution of civilians, which the Marxists accused him of, since he simply was not in St. Petersburg at that moment.

Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign any conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific decisions and actions. History itself eloquently testifies to who really should be called "bloody" - the enemies of the Russian state and the Orthodox Tsar.

Now about the Lena massacre: modern researchers associate the tragic events at the Lena mines with raiding - an activity to establish control over the mines of two conflicting joint-stock companies, during which representatives of the Russian management company Lenzoto provoked a strike in an attempt to prevent actual control of the mines by the board of the British company Lena Goldfields. The working conditions of the miners of the Lena gold mining partnership were as follows: the wages were significantly higher (up to 55 rubles) than in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the working day according to the employment contract was 8-11 hours (depending on the shift schedule), although in reality it, indeed, could last up to 16 hours, since at the end of the working day, artisanal work to search for nuggets was allowed. The reason for the strike was the "story with meat" still ambiguously assessed by researchers, and the decision to open fire was made by the gendarme captain, and certainly not by Nicholas II.

Myth 4

Nicholas II easily agreed to the government's proposal to abdicate, thereby violating his duty to the Fatherland and betraying Russia into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The renunciation of the anointed king from the throne, moreover, should be considered as an ecclesiastical canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the holy dignity.

Here we should probably start with the fact that modern historians in general cast doubt on the very fact of the abdication of the Tsar from the throne. The document on the abdication of Nicholas II, stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation, is a typewritten sheet, at the bottom of which is the signature "Nicholas", written in pencil and circled, apparently through the window glass, with a pen. The style of the text is completely different from the style of other documents drawn up by the Emperor.

The countersigning (assurance) inscription of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count Fredericks, on the abdication was also made in pencil and then outlined in pen. Thus, this document raises serious doubts about its authenticity and allows many historians to conclude that the Autocrat of the All-Russian Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II never drew up a renunciation, did not write it by hand and did not sign it.

In any case, the very renunciation of the royal dignity is not a crime against the Church, since the canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. And those spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, could abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, give his act a truly moral character.

Myth 5

The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyr's death for Christ, but ... (further options): political repression; the murder committed by the Bolsheviks; ritual murder committed by Jews, Freemasons, Satanists (optional); Lenin's blood feud for the death of his brother; the result of a worldwide conspiracy that aimed at an anti-Christian coup. Another version: the Royal Family was not shot, but secretly transported abroad; the execution room in the Ipatiev House is a deliberate staging.

Actually, according to any of the listed versions of the death of the Royal Family (with the exception of the absolutely incredible one about its salvation), the indisputable fact remains that the circumstances of the death of the Royal Family were physical and moral suffering and death at the hands of opponents, that it was a murder associated with incredible human torment: long, long and savage.

Princesses Maria, Olga, Tatyana and Anastasia and Tsarevich Alexei

In the "Deed on the Cathedral glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian XX century" it is written: "Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose day of church memory he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of murmuring. It is this longsuffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life." Most witnesses of the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. Their true greatness did not stem from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

Those who wish to carefully and impartially familiarize themselves with the published materials on the life and political activities of Nicholas II, the investigation into the murder of the Royal Family, can look at the following works in various publications:

• Robert Wilton. "The Last Days of the Romanovs" 1920;
• Michael Dieterikhs. "Murder of the Royal Family and Members of the Romanov House in the Urals" 1922;
• Nikolay Sokolov. "Murder of the Royal Family", 1925;
• Pavel Paganuzzi. "The truth about the murder of the Royal Family", 1981
• Nicholas Ross. "Death of the Royal Family", 1987
• Multatuli P.V. "Nicholas II. Road to Golgotha". -M., 2010
• Multatuli P.V. "Bearing witness to Christ even unto death", 2008
• Multatuli P.V. "God bless my decision." Nicholas II and the conspiracy of the generals, 2002

Julia Komleva,

Associate Professor of the Department of New and recent history

Ural State University named after Gorky

Pravoslavie.Ru - 10/13/2010.

Religious and mystical meaning of the murder of the royal family- Archbishop Averky Taushev

Firstly no execution of the royal family did not have, as evidenced by many facts described in the articles: There was no execution of the royal family. The royal family was not shot!

The whole truth about the canonization of Nicholas II

Why was Nicholas II canonized? This canonization seems strange to many people. I think that it is necessary to dot the i and highlight all the most important issues related to Nicholas II and his canonization. And these questions are important, and every person for whom the history of Russia is important should know about it.

These important questions are as follows.

1. Was the death of Nicholas II martyr's death for Christ? Martyrdom, accepted by him because he professed Christianity, professed Christ?

No. Nicholas II was shot not for his religious beliefs, but for his past political activities - this is a historical fact.

And actually, at that moment, the Civil War was going on, and people mass death for their political views from all sides participating in the war (and not only Reds and Whites). But all of them, for this reason, were not counted as saints, they were not considered martyrs.

Nicholas II was not required to renounce his religious views, they did not carry out any torture (for this purpose or with any other). And he lived with his family after his arrest (which, by the way, was not carried out by the Bolsheviks, but by the future leaders of the Whites - General Alekseev arrested the king, general Kornilov- queen) not in prison, but in a private house. That is, the conditions of the tsar's detention were very mild, incomparably milder than other detainees, both from the side of the Reds and from the side of the Whites.

On the day of the execution of Nicholas II, together with his family, they were simply forced to go down to the basement of the house, where the verdict was read out and shot. All. In general, after the arrest, the king lived with his family in a large merchant's house, and then died from a bullet. This was considered "martyrdom".

And the fact that before that, hundreds of thousands of people died from bullets for the tsar and the Christ-loving fatherland during the First World War in much more difficult and painful circumstances, was not a circumstance to classify all of them as holy martyrs. Snout, apparently did not come out, not of royal blood.

So the first historical fact that you need to know about is that the death of Nikolai Romanov was not a death for Christ and was not a martyr.

By the way, about the renunciation. This raises a second, also extremely important question.

2. How should we consider the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne?

The abdication of the anointed king from the throne should be regarded as an ecclesiastical canonical crime similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood. Absolutely clear.

Any soldier who arbitrarily left his post, left the object entrusted to him without protection, without supervision, especially in wartime, especially a strategically important post, is considered a criminal. At all times, in all countries and among all peoples, such a crime is considered extremely severe and very severely punished almost always the death penalty.

And how to relate to the king, who left the country in the most difficult wartime, besides, not just a king, but Supreme Commander? Only as a cowardly coward and a traitor to the motherland. That's right: betrayal is, by definition, a breach of allegiance or dereliction of duty. The tsar, having renounced, thereby refused to fulfill his duty to his homeland as tsar and as supreme commander in chief. In essence, he renounced Russia, the army and the people.

The people and the army were simply presented with a fait accompli. Therefore, to assert that the people are " gravest sin regicide that dominates all the peoples of Russia, ”and to demand repentance from the people before the tsar-traitor to the motherland, as the regicides demand, is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy. Here is how the count wrote in his memoirs Ignatiev, who was a participant in the coronation of Nicholas II, and since 1912 was a military attaché in France:

« ... the king, who is he now for me? I have only to give up on him, and he has given up on Russia. He broke the oath given in my presence under the ancient vaults of the Assumption Cathedral at the coronation.

The ornate words of the manifesto, which justify the abdication, are not convincing to me. The Russian tsar cannot "abdicate".

What a pitiful figure always seemed to me Paul I, but he also found the courage to say at the last minute to his killers - guard officers who offered him to sign an act of renunciation: "You can kill me, but I will die as your emperor" - and it was strangled, and its successor, Alexander I, only thanks to this, and was able, perhaps, to freely ascend the throne.

Nicholas II, by his renunciation, he himself releases me from the oath given to him, and what a bad example he sets for all of us military men! How would we judge a soldier who left the line, and even in battle? And what can we think about the “first soldier” of the Russian Empire, commander-in-chief of all land and sea forces, leaving his post without even thinking about what will happen to his army?

AI Ignatiev "Fifty years in the ranks." Volume 2, book 4, chapter 12.

From the fact of renunciation it also follows that from March 1917, Nicholas II ceased to be tsar. He became just a citizen Nikolai Romanov. Therefore, when they say: here, de, the Bolsheviks shot the tsar ... But in 1918 there was no longer a tsar in Russia, he died already in March 1917 - these are the facts. So the second historical fact that you need to know about: the very fact of his abdication of Nicholas II committed two grave crimes - an ecclesiastical canonical crime and a betrayal of the motherland.

But, perhaps, during his reign, Nicholas II was remembered as virtuous and merciful, like a king from God, who brought prosperity and prosperity to Russia? Let's talk about that too.

3. What was the reign of Nicholas II? Was he a good king and a real Christian? Was the king remembered as a model of Christian virtues?

It is not worth considering this issue in particular detail within the framework of this article, since Nicholas II was canonized precisely as a martyr, a martyr. That is, the reason for the canonization was not how he ruled(such as, Alexander Nevskiy- there really was something to canonize for) or how he lived, but how he died. That is, even those who had to canonize him understood that if we take the reign of Nicholas II, they glorify here its just not for nothing. The result of his reign was collapse of the Russian Empire is a historical fact.

Where did it start? From the tragedy on Khodynka. Many hundreds of people died. And the king on the same day went to have fun at a ball at the French embassy. The famine of 1901-1902, combined with brutal exploitation, was the reason that from 1902 mass peasant uprisings swept across Russia. The workers also showed increasing dissatisfaction with their disenfranchised position, poverty and barbaric exploitation.

On January 9, 1905, the workers went with a petition to the tsar. Workers peacefully marching with their wives and children to the tsar to complain about their difficult and disenfranchised situation were met with bullets. Hundreds of people died. And what about the king? The tsar in his speech of January 19 ... forgave those workers who were shot, if not even by his direct order, then with his knowledge and approval. This is by no means an example of Christian mercy, but rather the height of cynicism, meanness and hypocrisy.

As the Gospel of Matthew says:

Is there a person among you who

When his son asks him for bread, would you give him a stone?

And when he asks for a fish, would you give him a snake?

(Matthew 7:9-10)

So, Nicholas II turned out to be such a person. When the king's subjects came to him like children to their intercessor father and asked him for protection - bullets were his answer. The people did not forget this and did not forgive, which is natural. The answer was the revolution, which was drowned in the blood of the "good father." And then there was also Lena execution which was taken by the king as a matter of course.

Lena execution

A request for help, including spiritual Rasputin, Rasputin's influence even on politics and on the appointment of people to high government posts - is this also an example of following the canons of the Russian Orthodox Church? Hardly. No wonder no saint Patriarch Tikhon nor the holy Metropolitan of Petrograd Benjamin nor the holy metropolitan Krutitsky Peter nor the holy metropolitan Seraphim(Chichagov), nor the holy archbishop Thaddeus nor the holy archbishop Hilarion(Troitsky), nor the other hierarchs now glorified by our church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we now, the personality of the former tsar - none of them ever expressed the thought of him as a holy martyr (and at that time this was still could have spoken out loud).

In other words, people who knew Nicholas II, including the ministers of the church, including those who were canonized as saints (which means that the church has no reason not to trust them, but there is every reason to listen to them) did not see in it has no holiness.

So the third historical fact is that the life and reign of Nicholas II were such that there is nothing to glorify him for, because they were both mediocre and inglorious.

So why then do the admirers of Nicholas II raise such a howl, high and hysteria around his name, and so insist on his holiness?

4. So who are they, fans of Nicholas II? Why, in fact, Nicholas II was canonized as a saint? What was really behind this canonization?

And now let's move on to the main thing. Why, despite all of the above, was Nicholas II still canonized? Moreover, why are the appeals of nationwide repentance before him more and more powerful? Who is behind this? What is the power? Maybe it's monarchists? Does not look like it. You have seen a lot of communists who, after the collapse of the USSR, still revere Gorbachev, protect him in every possible way? I haven't come across these. How many Christians have you seen worshiping Judas Iscariot? I have not met.

There were tsars in Russia whose reign was very successful: for example, under Catherine II, outstanding military victories were won and the Crimea was liberated, with Alexandra I won an outstanding victory over Napoleon. But with them, they don’t rush like with a written bag, they don’t raise such noise and hysteria around them. So a monarchist defending Nicholas II is like a communist defending Gorbachev. Means, it's not about monarchism.

Maybe the fact is that the sin of regicide is so terrible that it is absolutely necessary to repent of it, moreover, to all the people, otherwise it is impossible? Maybe so?

But let's remember Paul I who was killed, remember Alexandra II, the king who freed the peasants from serfdom, who won the war with the Turks, and who was also killed. Moreover, both Paul I and Alexander II died kings in the performance of their royal duties. Why don’t they rush about with them, don’t demand to repent before them and don’t rank them as saints? This means that the point is not in monarchism and not in the sin of regicide. The matter is quite different.

The whole point is that these admirers of Nicholas II are in fact just terry anti-Soviet, and they do not hide their anti-Sovietism! They need a weighty reason to accuse the Bolsheviks and the Soviet government of something else! That's the whole point of canonization!

And now these people are also trying to present the execution of Nikolai Romanov as a ritual murder! At the same time, without having his remains (I mean, the remains of Nikolai Romanov, recognized as such by the church), that is, without any evidence to draw such a conclusion!

And the following important conclusions follow from this.

Firstly, the decision to canonize Nicholas II - an entirely politically motivated decision that has not religious, but political grounds.

Secondly, it turns out that the church, even in such a purely ecclesiastical issue as the issue of canonization, guided not by the will of God, but by the wishes of worldly authorities. And this, in turn, indicates the gracelessness of such a church, which is, in fact, a political organization that uses religion merely as an instrument of class domination.

Thirdly, the very fact that the highest church hierarchs cover up only their ambitions and the political desires of the authorities in the name of God indicates that they don't believe in God otherwise they themselves would be afraid of the wrath of God for their monstrous deception of millions of people.

And so that people do not think about all this, they could not realize and understand this - it is necessary to plunge the people into the darkness of ignorance. It is for this that all the current education reforms, the introduction of the Unified State Examination, etc., are being carried out. This is the co-operation of the authorities and the church. But that's a topic for another article.

Questions and answers.

1. Here it is logical to put the following question. So the king abdicated, he and his whole family were arrested. Did the church intercede for its Holy Tsar, or what?It's "or how".

February 27, 1917(the tsar has not yet abdicated!) chief prosecutor N.P. Raev appealed to the Holy Synod with a proposal to condemn the revolutionary movement. And what about the Holy Synod? The Synod rejected this proposal., motivating the refusal by the fact that it is still unknown where the betrayal comes from - from above or below.

Like this! During the February Revolution, the church, it turns out, did not support the tsar, but precisely the revolution! And what happened next? And then it was like this.

March 4, 1917 the meeting of the Holy Synod on March 4 was chaired by the Metropolitan of Kyiv Vladimir, and the new synodal chief prosecutor, Prince V.N. Lviv announced the granting of freedom to the Russian Orthodox Church from the guardianship of the state, which, they say, had a detrimental effect on church and public life. The members of the synod expressed sincere joy about the advent of a new era in the life of the church.

Like this! The tsar has abdicated, a decision has already been made to arrest him, and the higher church hierarchs, instead of interceding for the holy tsar, are rejoicing, except perhaps they are jumping from happiness!

the 5th of March The Synod ordered that in all the churches of the Petrograd diocese the longevity of the reigning house " no longer announced».

Like this! What reverence for the holy king is there - you shouldn’t even pray for his health!

March 6–8. The Holy Synod ordered the removal of the commemoration of the royal power from the liturgical ranks, about which the first-present member of the Synod, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv, on March 6, sent telegrams on his behalf to all the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church (66 within Russia and 1 in New York) with the order that “ prayers should be offered for the God-protected power of Russia and the faithful provisional government her."

March 7–8 The synod issued a definition according to which all Russian clergy were instructed: “in all cases, during divine services, instead of commemorating the reigning house, offer a prayer“ for the God-protected power of Russia and the faithful Provisional government her."

Like this! The highest church hierarchs ordered to pray not for the king, but for his persecutors and detractors! And then some of these hierarchs were also recognized as holy new martyrs...

2. How so? Why are they recognized as saints and Nicholas II and those who rejoiced at his abdication and arrest? How, on some basis, did they suddenly find themselves in the same host of saints?

Now it is already clear which one - anti-Bolshevism and anti-Sovietism! That's what they have in common! In other words, I already wrote about this in paragraph 4 of this article, and this example is another confirmation of this. Which further confirms that The ROC is a political organization, religiosity is just a cover. And often, the more anti-communism, the more holiness. And so, when the Nazis came, it was often like this:

Never forget about it.

Canonization of Russia's traitor Nicholas II. Open letter to the Patriarch

About the information war, about religions

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet, can be obtained on Internet conferences, constantly held on the site "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all waking up and interested ...

Subscribe to us

Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,

Our king is a bloodstain

The stench of gunpowder and smoke

In which the mind is dark ...

Our king is blind squalor,

Prison and whip, jurisdiction, execution,

Tsar hangman, the low twice,

What he promised, but did not dare to give.

He's a coward, he feels stuttering

But it will be, the hour of reckoning awaits.

Who began to reign - Khodynka,

He will finish - standing on the scaffold.

K. Balmont "Our Tsar". 1906

Today is the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Nicholas II.

Nicholas II was born in 1868 and as a teenager was present at the death of his grandfather, Alexander the Liberator. In 1894, after the death of his father, he came to the throne. In 1917 he was overthrown from the throne, and in 1918 he was shot without trial together with his family in Yekaterinburg.

AT Soviet time there was such an anecdote. With the introduction of the title of Hero of Socialist Labor in 1938, one of the first to receive this title was Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov (posthumously). With the wording "For the creation of a revolutionary situation in Russia."

This anecdote reflects a sad historical reality. Nicholas II inherited from his father a rather powerful country and an excellent assistant - the outstanding Russian reformer S. Yu. Witte. Witte was dismissed because he opposed Russia's involvement in the war with Japan. The defeat in the Russo-Japanese War accelerated the revolutionary processes - the first Russian revolution took place. Witte was replaced by the strong-willed and decisive P. A. Stolypin. He began reforms that were supposed to turn Russia into a decent bourgeois-monarchical state. Stolypin categorically objected to any action that could drag Russia into a new war. Stolypin died. A new big war led Russia to a new, big revolution in 1917. It turns out that Nicholas II, with his own hands, contributed to the emergence of two revolutionary situations in Russia.

Nevertheless, in 2000, he and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as saints. The attitude towards the personality of Nicholas II in Russian society is polar, although the official media did everything to portray the last Russian Tsar as "white and fluffy." During the reign of Boris N. Yeltsin, the found remains of the royal family were buried in the aisle of the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

They say that Nicholas II shot quite a few people - just a couple of thousand people, not like, they say, he is "the bloody tyrant Stalin." But how he shot them! Peaceful, unarmed people came to the king with banners, with icons and portraits of the monarch, with church hymns; they sincerely believed that the father-king loved them, that he would intercede for them, listen and solve their problems. And in them - a hail of bullets.

I think that already on that day, January 9, 1905 (Bloody Sunday), the tsar signed his own death warrant.

Well, okay, the Bolsheviks shot innocent children - this can be condemned. Although, again, did the tsar feel sorry for the children shot by soldiers in 1905, as well as orphans whose fathers did not return home from the demonstration?

But, in any case, Nicholas himself was by no means "innocent victim" and those who made him holy are well aware of this. Therefore, the canonization of Nicholas the Bloody and all this chanting and glorification of his "spiritual and moral deeds" is hypocrisy, is a purely political game that goes far beyond religion.

Now the "patriotic intelligentsia" is fanning the myth about Nicholas II and Nicholas Russia, about the wise and far-sighted monarch and the prosperity of his country and people. Allegedly, the Russian Empire developed so dynamically that - if not for the "damned Bolsheviks" - in a couple of decades it would have become the first world power. However, all these tales do not stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, Russian industry was then developing at a rather rapid pace, but despite this, Russia remained a backward agrarian-industrial country. It was 20 times inferior to the United States in coal production, smelted 11 times less iron and steel per capita than the States. Russia almost did not produce electric generators, tractors, combines, excavators, optical instruments and many other important types of machinery and equipment - and this despite the presence of outstanding scientists and designers in the country.

During the First World War, Russia built 3.5 thousand aircraft - against 47.3 thousand German, 47.8 thousand British and 52.1 thousand French. Even the equally backward and rotten Austro-Hungarian Empire was able to produce 5.4 thousand airplanes!

The backwardness of the then Russia is clearly visible from the structure of its exports. In 1909-1913, 41.7% of exports were grain. The following lines in the list of main export items were occupied by timber, cow butter and eggs, yarn, flour and bran, sugar, cake and oil products. And no cars for you, no "high-tech products"! Their country imported, and at the same time imported coal and coke (having Donbass) and cotton (having Central Asia).

Russia was the world's largest exporter of grain (26% of world exports) - anti-Soviet "patriots" are so fond of talking about this! But its peasants were malnourished and regularly starved. Moreover, according to Leo Tolstoy, the famine in Russia came not when the bread was not born, but when the quinoa was not born!

Today it is believed that Nicholas II was a fiery patriot of Russia. But then how did it happen that during his reign the country fell into complete economic and political dependence on the West?

The key sectors of heavy industry—coal, metallurgical, oil, platinum, locomotive and shipbuilding, electrical engineering—were completely controlled by Western capital.

Thus, 70% of coal production in the Donbass was controlled by Franco-Belgian capitalists; even the governing body of the Russian syndicate "Produgol" was located abroad (the so-called "Paris Committee"). Foreigners owned 34% of the share capital of Russian banks.

In addition, the tsarist government got into colossal debts. The state budget deficit sometimes reached 1/4 of revenues and was covered by loans - mostly external. Therefore, one should not be surprised that, as a result, the West dragged Russia - as a supplier of "cannon fodder" - into its showdown, into the imperialist slaughter, which, in fact, brought the autocracy to the final collapse.

then to be surprised that in the end the West dragged Russia - as a supplier of "cannon fodder" - into its showdown, into the imperialist slaughter, which, in fact, brought the autocracy to the final collapse.

The country was clearly not ready for war. The weakness of its army was revealed as early as 1904-05, and in 1914-17 it manifested itself with even greater force - and this fundamental weakness of the army, due to the general backwardness of the country and the rottenness of its top, could not be compensated for by the courage of Russian soldiers and the military skill of individual generals.

He was even more unprepared for a new type of war - for a large-scale and protracted war, requiring the full mobilization of the forces of the whole country - the rear.

Russia outright lost to Germany in the production of rifles (for all the years of the war - 3.85 million units against 8.55), easel machine guns (28 thousand units against 280), artillery pieces (11.7 thousand against 64 thousand units). ) and shells for them (67 million vs. 306). Only in the production of cartridges did we take first place among all the warring countries.

The authorities of Russia, "skillfully" headed by Nicholas II, were unable to overcome the speculation and sabotage of the capitalists, who disrupted the supplies necessary for the front and rear. And when the tsarist government had not yet coped with the task of supplying industrial cities (and, above all, Petrograd) with food (the announced surplus appraisal failed miserably), then it was swept away by a wave of popular indignation!

Most contemporaries and historians note that Nicholas had an average level of intelligence and knowledge (although he was not stupid), that he combined weak will and stubbornness, that he was subject to foreign influence, and that managing a huge empire was a “heavy burden” for him. In short, he was a statesman. Doesn't pull the last one Russian emperor on an outstanding historical figure!

Yes, and the champion of "democratic rights and freedoms" is not very drawn. He dispersed two State Dumas, and signed the liberal Manifesto of October 17, 1905, when the revolution had already driven him into a corner. And here it would also be useful to recall that during his reign, and, probably, with his knowledge, our great writer Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy. The old count - "the conscience of the Russian people" - was attacked for raising his voice in defense of the downtrodden and oppressed peasant.

Nevertheless, in 2000, he and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as saints. The attitude towards the personality of Nicholas II in Russian society is polar, although the official media did everything to portray the last Russian Tsar as "white and fluffy."

Under the Law of Succession, one of the most important laws of the Russian Empire, none of the remaining Romanovs have legal rights to the throne. Does Russia need a new dynasty? This is another question.

based on materials a_gor2

P.S. Duck, all the same, who was Tsar Nicholas 2, a far-sighted monarch, a "tsar-father", a "saint", as he is now commonly called, or a weak-willed ruler, a rag, a king who earned the nickname "bloody", by the fact that he shot a peaceful demonstration that brought his own the state to decline and death, and only thanks to the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, who saved the country at that difficult time. The answer is obvious to me.

* Extremist and terrorist organizations banned in the Russian Federation: Jehovah's Witnesses, National Bolshevik Party, Right Sector, Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Islamic State (ISIS, ISIS, Daesh), Jabhat Fatah ash-Sham", "Jabhat al-Nusra", "Al-Qaeda", "UNA-UNSO", "Taliban", "Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people", "Misanthropic Division", "Brotherhood" Korchinsky, "Trident named after. Stepan Bandera", "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" (OUN)

Now on main

Related Articles

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  5.03.2019 14:13 9

• 

  arctus

  Myths and reality of the Brest peace

  Today is the 101st anniversary of the Brest peace. Peace - forced and obscene. But only peace gave the country a respite and the opportunity to assemble a new efficient army for future victories. These seemingly obvious things in our time are not clear to everyone. The fact is that his story, during perestroika in the USSR, was heavily mythologized for the sole purpose of…

  4.03.2019 16:32 22

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  "Sugar" scam of Prince Obolensky

  Alamy/Vostock photo 140 years ago, in February 1879, the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office began investigating embezzlement at the Kronstadt Commercial Bank. The scandal was loud, because the credit institution, which arose only 7 years ago, did not work anywhere, but in the main base of the Russian fleet. Among its founders was even one of the commandants of Kronstadt. The investigation revealed a catastrophic picture - with 500 thousand rubles. authorized capital and millions of debts in the bank's cash desk there were only 502 rubles. with half...

  1.03.2019 20:25 29

• 

  alexey43

  "... we will raze banks and prisons to the ground ..." (c).

  The first star this year is like a tennis ball against a wall, two fingers against a fence, a stopper of vodka - in the wrong throat: run / swing / exhale ... and immediately - return. The year of offensive Fridays - until midnight: only the Orthodox will sit down to celebrate - you need to change the topic, tablecloth, snack. Here today. And the star was not blown away by the Moscow wind, it was born in transparent ...

  23.02.2019 20:50 55

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  The first peasant mortgage: how former serfs were credited in 19th-century Russia

  Vostock Photo Archive The abolition of serfdom is rightly regarded as the greatest achievement of the reign of Alexander II. But this reform was equally justly criticized by contemporaries and descendants. Initially, the peasants were planned to be freed by giving them land plots that were in their personal use. However, during the implementation of the reform, the landlords received the right to "cuts" - the opportunity to cut off from the peasants and keep part of their land. On average, in European Russia, “segments” amounted to the fifth ...

  22.02.2019 15:08 31

• 

  Stanislav Smagin

  Leafing through the old notebook of a murdered collaborator

  The other day, February 19, was the 65th anniversary of the sad event that became for Russia a real humanitarian and geopolitical Tsushima, which in the end was overcome, but only through drawing new tsushima, large small ones, into the strip. This, of course, is about the transfer of Crimea and Sevastopol from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR, which was committed with the grossest violation of all norms and laws. Instantaneously, this decision had ...

  21.02.2019 21:56 44

• 

  HISTORY IN PHOTOS

  The opening of McDonald's in Moscow: 5 thousand idiots

  On May 3, 1989, construction began on the first McDonald's restaurant on Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow, and on January 31, 1990, it was opened. At dawn on January 31, 1990, over 5,000 people gathered in front of the restaurant, waiting for the opening. The savages stood behind a sandwich with a cutlet all night But what were the prices then (1990): Big ...

  21.02.2019 16:17 50

• 

  Vladimir Veretennikov

  How a Latvian partisan became an underground hero

  Photo from here February 18 marks the 75th anniversary of the capture of Imants Sudmalis, a leader of the Latvian anti-Nazi underground, in Riga in 1944 by Gestapo agents. Sudmalis managed to become a real legend: his name inspired fear in enemies and inspired friends. The life of the famous Latvian partisan could become a scenario for an adventure film. The Nazis completely conquered Latvia already by 8 ...

  19.02.2019 18:50 28

• 

  Andrey Sidorchik

  Notebook from Moabit. The last feat of Musa Jalil

  The painting by Kharis Abdrakhmanovich Yakupov “Before the Sentence”, which depicts the poet Musa Jalil, who was executed by the Nazis in a Berlin prison in 1944. © / A. Agapov / RIA Novosti On February 15, 1906, the Soviet Tatar poet, Hero of the Soviet Union Musa Jalil was born. .. To rest from captivity, To be free in the draft ... But the walls are getting cold over the groans, The heavy door is locked. Oh heaven...

  17.02.2019 19:27 25

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  Ilyinka - the cradle of Russian capitalism

  RIA Novosti From the time of early capitalism, the English term City has become a generally accepted and common noun for the "city center of business life." Hardly anyone in Russia today is unaware of the Moscow City skyscrapers, an area that the city authorities define as a "zone of business activity." But in the past, our ancestors also used this term - since the middle of the 19th century, "Moscow City" has traditionally been called a small area near the Kremlin, in Kitay-gorod. There, first of all…

  17.02.2019 19:23 19

• 

  Burkina Faso

  Russia and the USSR have always had a special relationship with Afghanistan. Difficult but special. Suffice it to say that the USSR, trying to secure its southern underbelly, has always tried to help and build good neighborly relations with these tribes, spreading there reasonable, kind, eternal, including the great Russian culture and literature. One of the tools of the "treacherous" Bolsheviks was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. In connection with…

  16.02.2019 15:30 29

• 

  Burkina Faso

  Statistics before the revolution, in the USSR and now

  All critics of the Soviet system, being backed up by facts, as a rule do not give up and resort to their last resort, that they say that all statistics in the USSR were faked for the sake of propaganda. The argument is rather helpless, if only because in the USSR the inhabitants were never interested in statistics and it was of a purely official, internal nature. We heard some numbers and calculations ...

  10.02.2019 9:50 61

• 

  Elena Kovacic

  On the birthday of the hero of the Civil War Vasily Chapaev

  Only 32 years were allotted to him on earth. But posthumous fame surpassed all conceivable boundaries. He became a popular favorite, almost a folklore character - the hero of jokes about Vasily Ivanovich, Petka and Anka the machine gunner. See the gallery for the article “I told Vaska: study, you fool, otherwise they will laugh at you! So you didn’t listen!” - talking about these jokes ...

  9.02.2019 23:28 51

• 

  from blogs

  99 years ago. "Admiral? To the Angara!

  February 7 is another anniversary of the execution of the "Supreme Ruler of Russia" Admiral Alexander Vasilyevich Kolchak. Below is the text of the memoir essay of the execution commander, chairman of the Irkutsk emergency commission of inquiry that interrogated Kolchak, Samuil Chudnovsky. It was published in Pravda on January 16, 1935. Some phrases that were missing from the Pravda essay appeared in a book publication of the essay in 1961. They are below...

  9.02.2019 23:11 57

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  Financial trap for the Ottoman Empire

  Grenville Collins Postcard Collection/Mary Evans/Vostock Photo Ottoman Empire, was still a huge power, spread over three continents - from Libya to Iraq, from Serbia to Sudan. The Danube, Euphrates and Nile were still formally considered "Ottoman" rivers. But in reality, the once mighty empire is mired in the backward Middle Ages. Its finances also remained medieval - until Crimean War there were no banks in the country at all. In the market there were only money changers - "sarrafs". However, due to…

  9.02.2019 16:32 27

• 

  Stanislav Smagin

  Street of the mentally handicapped

  The chairman of the Bashkir Republican Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Yunir Kutluguzhin, called for the return of Zaki Validi Street, on which the committee is actually located, to the name of Mikhail Frunze, which she wore before. This is not the first time this issue has been raised - and earlier the Bashkir communists demanded the restoration of the former godonym. The initiative of the Bashkir communists can only be welcomed. Also because she...

  9.02.2019 15:34 41

• 

  arctus

  155 years the inglorious Russo-Japanese War began

  As a result of the lost war, surprisingly, Russia also received one powerful advantage. She ceased to be bound by the Shimoda Treaty of 1855, according to which the Russian side ceded the South Kuriles in exchange for "permanent peace and sincere friendship between Russia and Japan", as well as some trade advantages. It is unlikely, of course, that Nicholas II and the then Council of Ministers of the Republic of Ingushetia ...

  8.02.2019 16:07 36

• 

  The editors of the "People's Journalist"

  “It would be a trough, but there are pigs”

  Today is the birthday of the giant of satire and the greatest cleverness Francois Rabelais (1494). "I fear nothing but danger"; “Together with the common property, the private always perishes”; "There is no gut without shit"; “…… the brain is the most perfect kind of food that nature gives us”; “Everything comes on time if people know how to wait”; “I don’t bother myself for hours - I’m not a person ...

  4.02.2019 22:14 63

• 

  IA Red Spring

  Immortal feat: Battle of Stalingrad

  Battle of Stalingrad Skopina Olga © IA Krasnaya Vesna On February 2, 1943, the Germans capitulated near Stalingrad. 76 years ago... We fell asleep thinking about you. We turned on the loudspeaker at dawn to hear about your fate. You started our morning. In the cares of the day, dozens of times in a row, clenching our teeth, holding our breath, we repeated: - Courage, Stalingrad! Through our...

  3.02.2019 16:37 75

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  The last Russian-Turkish war began with a scandal at the top of the Russian Empire

  Finance Minister Baron Mikhail Khristoforovich Reitern The History Collection/Alamy Stock Photo/Vostock Photo The Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 began almost with an open scandal at the top of the Russian Empire, which postponed it for half a year. On September 14, 1876, the Minister of War sent an urgent telegram to the Minister of Finance, "in order to prepare funds in case of mobilization of troops." The head of the Ministry of Finance, Baron Reitern, defiantly retired to a country estate, ignoring the telegram of the military. Just a challenge...

"Lenta.ru" studies the so-called "controversial issues" of Russian history. Experts preparing a unified school textbook on the subject formulated topic No. 16 as follows: "Causes, consequences and assessment of the fall of the monarchy in Russia, the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and their victory in the Civil War." One of the key figures of this topic is the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II, who was killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and canonized by the Orthodox Church at the end of the 20th century. Lenta.ru asked publicist Ivan Davydov to investigate the life of Nicholas II in order to find out whether he could be considered a saint and how the tsar's private life was connected with the "catastrophe of 1917."

In Russia, history ends badly. In the sense that it is reluctant. Our history continues to weigh on us, and sometimes on us. It seems that in Russia there is no time at all: everything is relevant. Historical characters are our contemporaries and partners in political discussions.

In the case of Nicholas II, this is quite clear: he is the last (at least for the moment) Russian tsar, he began the terrible Russian twentieth century - and the empire ended with him. The events that determined this century and still do not want to let us go - two wars and three revolutions - are episodes of his personal biography. Some even consider the murder of Nicholas II and his family to be a nationwide unforgivable sin, for which many Russian troubles are retribution. Rehabilitation, search and identification of the remains of the royal family are important political gestures of the Yeltsin era.

And since August 2000, Nicholas has been a canonized holy martyr. Moreover, a very popular saint - just remember the exhibition "Romanovs", held in December 2013. It turns out that to spite his killers, the last Russian tsar is now more alive than all the living.

Where did bears come from

It is important to understand that for us (including those who see a saint in the last tsar), Nicholas is not at all the same person as he was for millions of his subjects, at least at the beginning of his reign.

In the collections of Russian folk legends, a plot akin to Pushkin's "The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish" is repeatedly repeated. The farmer goes for firewood and finds a magic tree in the forest. The tree asks not to destroy it, in return promising various benefits. Gradually, the old man's appetites (not without inciting from his grumpy wife) grow - and in the end he declares his desire to be king. The magic tree is horrified: is it a conceivable thing - the king has been appointed by God, how can one encroach on such a thing? And he turns a greedy couple into bears so that people are afraid of them.

So, for his subjects, and by no means only for illiterate peasants, the king was the anointed of God, the bearer of sacred power and a special mission. Neither revolutionary terrorists, nor revolutionary theorists, nor free-thinking liberals could seriously shake this faith. Between Nicholas II, the anointed of God, crowned in 1896, the sovereign of all Russia - and the citizen Romanov, whom the Chekists killed in Yekaterinburg with his family and loved ones in 1918, is not even a distance, but an insurmountable abyss. The question of where this abyss came from is one of the most difficult in our history (generally not particularly smooth). Wars, revolutions, economic growth and political terror, reforms, reaction - everything is linked in this issue. I will not deceive - I have no answer, but there is a suspicion that some small and insignificant part of the answer is hidden in the human biography of the last bearer of autocratic power.

The frivolous son of a stern father

Many portraits have been preserved: the last tsar lived in the era of photography and loved to take pictures himself. But words are more interesting than muddy and old pictures, and a lot has been said about the emperor, and by people who knew a lot about the arrangement of words. For example, Mayakovsky, with the pathos of an eyewitness:

And I see - landau is rolling,
And in this land
A young military man is sitting
In a sleek beard.
Before him, like chumps,
Four daughters.
And on the backs of cobblestones, as on our coffins,
Retinue behind him in eagles and coats of arms.
And ringing bells
Blurred in ladies' squeak:
Hurrah! Tsar Sovereign Nicholas,
Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia.

(The poem "The Emperor" was written in 1928 and is dedicated to an excursion to the burial place of Nicholas; the poet-agitator, of course, approved of the murder of the tsar; but the verses are beautiful, nothing can be done about it.)

But that's all later. In the meantime, in May 1868, the son of Nikolai was born in the family of the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich. In principle, Alexander Alexandrovich was not preparing to reign, but the eldest son of Alexander II, Nikolai, fell ill during a trip abroad and died. So Alexander III became king in a certain sense by accident. And Nicholas II, it turns out, doubly by accident.

Alexander Alexandrovich ascended the throne in 1881 - after his father, nicknamed the Liberator for the abolition of serfdom, was brutally murdered by revolutionaries in St. Petersburg. Alexander III ruled abruptly, unlike his predecessor, without flirting with the liberal public. The tsar responded with terror to terror, he caught many revolutionaries and hanged them. Among others - Alexandra Ulyanova. His younger brother Vladimir, as we know, subsequently took revenge on the royal family.

The time of bans, reactions, censorship and police arbitrariness - this is how the contemporary oppositionists described the era of Alexander III (mostly from abroad, of course) and after them Soviet historians. And this is also the time of the war with the Turks in the Balkans for the liberation of the "Slav brothers" (the one on which the brave intelligence agent Fandorin performed his exploits), conquests in Central Asia, as well as various economic indulgences for the peasants, strengthening the army and overcoming budget disasters.

For our story, it is important that the busy king did not have so many free minutes for family life. Almost the only (apocryphal) story about the relationship between father and son is associated with the beautiful ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. Allegedly, evil tongues told, the king was upset and worried that the heir could not acquire a mistress in any way. And then one day stern servants came to the son's chambers (Alexander III was a simple, rude, sharp man, he made friends mainly with the military) and brought a gift from his father - a carpet. And in the carpet - the famous ballerina. Naked. That's how we met.

Nicholas's mother, Empress Maria Feodorovna (Princess Dagmar of Denmark), had little interest in Russian affairs. The heir grew up under the supervision of tutors - first an Englishman, then local ones. Received a decent education. Three European languages, and he spoke English almost better than Russian, an in-depth gymnasium course, then some university subjects.

Later - a pleasure trip to the mysterious countries of the East. In particular, to Japan. There was trouble with the heir. During a walk, a samurai attacked the crown prince and hit the future king with a sword on the head. In pre-revolutionary foreign brochures published by Russian revolutionaries, they wrote that the heir behaved impolitely in the temple, and in one Bolshevik one, that a drunken Nikolai urinated on some statue. These are all propaganda lies. However, there was one hit. The second one managed to repulse someone from the retinue, but the sediment remained. And also - a scar, regular headaches and dislike for the Land of the Rising Sun.

According to family tradition, the heir went through something like military practice in the guard. First - in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, then - in the Life Guards Hussars. Here, too, there is no anecdote. The hussars, in full accordance with the legend, were famous for rampant drunkenness. At one time, when the commander of the regiment was Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. (grandson of Nicholas I, cousin of the father of Nicholas II), the hussars even developed a whole ritual. Having drunk themselves to hell, they ran naked into the night - and howled, imitating a pack of wolves. And so - until the barman brings them a trough of vodka, after drinking from which the werewolves calmed down and went to sleep. So served as the heir, most likely fun.

He served cheerfully, lived cheerfully, in the spring of 1894 he became engaged to Princess Alice of Hesse (she converted to Orthodoxy and became Alexandra Feodorovna). Marrying for love is a problem for crowned persons, but for the future spouses everything somehow worked out right away, and in the future, in the course of their life together, they showed unostentatious tenderness to each other.

Oh yes. Nikolai left Matilda Kshesinskaya immediately after the engagement. But the royal family liked the ballerina, then she was the mistress of two more grand dukes. She even gave birth to one.

In 1912, cadet V.P. Obninsky published in Berlin the book "The Last Autocrat", in which he collected, it seems, all the known defamatory rumors about the tsar. So, he reports that Nikolai tried to refuse the reign, but his father, shortly before his death, forced him to sign the appropriate paper. However, no other historian confirms this rumor.

From Khodynka to the October 17 Manifesto

The last Russian tsar was definitely unlucky. The key events of his life - and Russian history - did not put him in the best light, and often - without his obvious fault.

According to tradition, in honor of the coronation of the new emperor, a celebration was scheduled in Moscow: on May 18, 1896, up to half a million people gathered for festivities on the Khodynka field (pitted with pits, bounded on one side by a ravine; generally, moderately convenient). The people were promised beer, honey, nuts, sweets, gift mugs with monograms and portraits of the new emperor and empress. As well as gingerbread and sausage.

The people began to gather the day before, and early in the morning someone shouted in the crowd that there would not be enough gifts for everyone. A wild crush ensued. The police were unable to contain the crowd. As a result, about two thousand people died, hundreds of crippled people ended up in hospitals.

But this is in the morning. In the afternoon, the police finally coped with the riots, the dead were taken away, the blood was sprinkled with sand, the emperor arrived on the field, the subjects shouted the prescribed “hurray”. But, of course, they immediately started talking that the omen for the beginning of the reign was so-so. “Whoever began to reign over Khodynka will end up standing on the scaffold,” one mediocre but popular poet would later write. This is how a mediocre poet can turn out to be a prophet. The tsar is hardly personally responsible for the poor organization of the celebrations. But for many contemporaries, the words "Nikolai" and "Khodynka" somehow tied together.

In memory of the dead, Moscow students tried to arrange a demonstration. They were dispersed, and the instigators were caught. Nikolai showed that he was still the son of his father and did not intend to be liberal.

However, his intentions were generally vague. He visited European, let's say, colleagues (the age of empires is not yet over) and tried to persuade the leaders of world powers to eternal peace. True, without enthusiasm and without much success, everyone in Europe understood even then that a big war was a matter of time. And no one understood how big it would be, this war. Nobody understood, nobody was afraid.

The king was clearly more interested in quiet family life than state affairs. Daughters were born one after another - Olga (even before the coronation), then Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia. There was no son, which caused concern. The dynasty needed an heir.

Cottage in Livadia, hunting. The king liked to shoot. The so-called "Diary of Nicholas II", all these dull, monotonous and endless "shot at crows", "killed a cat", "drank tea" - a fake; but the tsar fired on innocent crows and cats with enthusiasm.

Photo: Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky / Library of Congress

As mentioned above, the tsar became interested in photography (and, by the way, supported the famous Prokudin-Gorsky in every possible way). And also - one of the first in Europe to evaluate such new thing like a car. I drove personally and had a fair fleet of vehicles. For pleasant activities, time flowed imperceptibly. The tsar rode a car in the parks, and Russia climbed into Asia.

Even Alexander III understood that the empire would have to seriously fight in the East, and he sent his son on a cruise for nine months for a reason. In Japan, Nikolai, as we remember, did not like it. A military alliance with China against Japan is one of his first foreign policy deals. Next were the construction of the CER (Chinese Eastern railway), military bases in China, including the famous Port Arthur. And the discontent of Japan, and the rupture of diplomatic relations in January 1904, and right there - an attack on the Russian squadron.

Bird cherry quietly crept like a dream
And someone "Tsushima ..." said into the phone.
Hurry, Hurry! Term ends!
"Varangian" and "Korean" went east.

This is Anna Andreevna Akhmatova.

"Varangian" and "Korean", as everyone knows, died heroically in Chemulpo Bay, but at first the reason for Japanese success was seen solely in the deceit of the "yellow-faced devils." They were going to fight with the savages, hatred moods reigned in society. And then the tsar finally had an heir, Tsarevich Alexei.

Both the tsar, the military, and many ordinary subjects, who were then experiencing patriotic enthusiasm, somehow did not notice that the Japanese savages were seriously preparing for war, having spent a lot of money, attracted the best foreign specialists and created an army and navy that were clearly more powerful than the Russians.

Failures followed one after another. The economy of an agrarian country could not withstand the pace necessary to secure the front. Communications were no good - Russia is too big for us and our roads are too bad. The Russian army near Mukden was defeated. The huge fleet crawled around half of the Earth from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, and then near the island of Tsushima was almost completely destroyed by the Japanese in a few hours. Port Arthur surrendered. Peace had to be concluded on humiliating terms. They gave away, among other things, half of Sakhalin.

Embittered, crippled, having seen hunger, mediocrity, cowardice and thieving command, soldiers returned to Russia. Lots of soldiers.

And in Russia by that time a lot had happened. Bloody Sunday, for example, January 9, 1905. The workers, whose position, naturally, worsened (after all, there was a war), decided to go to the tsar - to ask for bread and, oddly enough, political freedoms up to popular representation. We met a demonstration with bullets, and the figures vary - from 100 to 200 people died. The workers got angry. Nikolai was upset.

Then there was what is called the revolution of 1905 - riots in the army and cities, their bloody suppression and - as an attempt to reconcile the country - the Manifesto of October 17, which granted the Russians basic civil liberties and parliament - the State Duma. The emperor dissolved the First Duma by his decree less than a year later. He didn't like the idea at all.

All these events did not add popularity to the sovereign. Among the intelligentsia, he seems to have no supporters at all. Konstantin Balmont, a rather nasty but very popular poet in those days, published a book of poems abroad with the pretentious title "Songs of the Struggle", which contained, among other things, the poem "Our Tsar".

Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,
Our king is a bloodstain
The stench of gunpowder and smoke
In which the mind is dark.

About the scaffold and Khodynka, quoted above, - from the same place.

Tsar, war and newspapers

The time between the two wars is filled with events tight and tight. The Stolypin terror and the Stolypin land reform (“They need great upheavals, we need a great Russia,” this beautiful phrase were quoted by V.V. Putin, R.A. Kadyrov, N.S. Mikhalkov, and spawned by a little-known speechwriter who was available to the formidable prime minister.) Economic growth. The first experiences of parliamentary work; Dumas that were always in conflict with the government and dismissed by the tsar. The undercover fuss of the revolutionary parties that destroyed the empire - the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks. Nationalist reaction, the Union of the Russian People, tacitly supported by the tsar, Jewish pogroms. The rise of the arts...

The growth of influence at the court of Rasputin - a crazy old man from Siberia, either a whip or a holy fool, who in the end managed to completely subjugate the Russian empress to his will: the crown prince was sick, Rasputin knew how to help him, and this worried the queen more than all the upheavals in the external the world.

To our proud capital
He enters - God, save! -
Enchant the queen
Invisible Russia.

This is Gumilyov Nikolai Stepanovich, the poem "Man" from the book "Bonfire".

It makes no sense, perhaps, to retell in detail the history of the First World War, which thundered in August 1914 (by the way, there is an interesting and unexpected document on the state of the country on the eve of the disaster: just in 1914, John Grosvenor, an American who wrote for The National, visited Russia Geographic Magazine's large and enthusiastic article "Young Russia. The Land of Unlimited Opportunities" with a bunch of photos; the country, according to the American, was blooming).

In short, all this looked like a quote from quite recent newspapers: first, patriotic enthusiasm, then - failures at the front, the economy, unable to serve the front, bad roads.

And also - the tsar, who decided to personally lead the army in August 1915, and also - endless lines for bread in the capital and large cities, and right there - the revelry of the nouveaux riches, "rising" on millions of military contracts, and also - many thousands returning from front. Cripples and just deserters. Those who have seen death up close, the mud of gray Galicia, those who have seen Europe...

In addition, probably for the first time: the headquarters of the warring powers launched a large-scale information war, supplying the army and rear of the enemy with the most terrible rumors, including about the most august persons. And in millions of leaflets throughout the country, stories were spreading that our tsar was a cowardly imbecile drunkard, and his wife was Rasputin's mistress and a German spy.

All this, of course, was a lie, but the important thing is this: in a world where the printed word was still believed and where ideas about the sacredness of autocratic power still flickered, they were dealt a very strong blow. It was not German leaflets or Bolshevik newspapers that broke the monarchy, but their role should not be completely discounted.

Tellingly, the German monarchy also did not survive the war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ended. In a world where there are no secrets in power, where a journalist in a newspaper can rinse the sovereign as he wants, empires will not survive.

In view of all this, it probably becomes clearer why, when the king abdicated, this did not particularly surprise anyone. Except maybe himself and his wife. At the end of February, his wife wrote to him that hooligans were operating in St. Petersburg (this is how she tried to comprehend February Revolution), and he demanded to suppress the unrest, no longer having loyal troops at hand. On March 2, 1917, Nicholas signed the abdication.

Ipatiev house and everything after

The Provisional Government sent the former tsar and his family to Tyumen, then to Tobolsk. The king almost liked what was happening. It's not so bad to be a private citizen and no longer responsible for a huge, war-torn country. Then the Bolsheviks moved him to Yekaterinburg.

Then ... Everyone knows what happened then, in July 1918. Specific ideas of the Bolsheviks about political pragmatism. A brutal murder - the king, the queen, children, doctors, servants. Martyrdom turned the last autocrat into a holy martyr. Icons of the king are now sold in any church shop, and with a portrait there is a certain difficulty.

A gallant military man with a well-groomed beard, a quiet, one might even say - a kindly (forgive the dead cats) man in the street, who loved his family and simple human joys, turned out - not without the intervention of a case - at the head of the largest country in the most, probably, terrible period of its history.

It is as if he is hiding behind this story, there is little bright in him - not only in the events that passed by, touching him and his family, in the events that in the end destroyed both him and the country, creating another. It’s as if he doesn’t exist, you can’t see him behind a series of disasters.

And a terrible death removes the questions that are so fond of being asked in Russia: is the ruler to blame for the troubles of the country? Guilty. Of course. But no more than many others. And he paid dearly, atoning for his guilt.

The history of the life of the royal martyrs and their canonization is familiar to everyone in our country, and that is why questions arise around their glorification by the Church that could be asked about many other saints if their life stories were more widely known.

We have tried to collect the most common questions and give answers to them.

This helped us Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, Member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Why was the royal family canonized?

Historical facts do not allow us to speak of members of the royal family as Christian martyrs. Martyrdom presupposes for a person the possibility of saving his life through renunciation of Christ. The sovereign family was killed precisely as the sovereign family: the people who killed them were quite secularized in their worldview and perceived them primarily as a symbol of imperial Russia they hated.

The family of Nicholas II was glorified in the rite of passion-bearing, which is characteristic of the Russian Church. In this rank, Russian princes and sovereigns are traditionally canonized, who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering or death at the hands of political opponents.

Five reports were submitted to the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, devoted to the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian sovereign. The commission decided that the activities of Emperor Nicholas II in themselves do not provide sufficient grounds for both his canonization and the canonization of members of his family. However, the reports that determined the final - positive - decision of the Commission were the sixth and seventh: "The Last Days of the Royal Family" and "The Attitude of the Church towards Passion-Bearing".
“Most of the witnesses speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk gubernatorial and Ipatiev Yekaterinburg houses,” the report “The Last Days of the Tsar’s Family” emphasized, “as people who are suffering, but obedient to the will of God. Despite all the mockery and insults they endured in captivity, they led a pious life, sincerely strove to embody the commandments of the Gospel in it. Behind the many sufferings of the last days of the royal family, we see the all-conquering evil light of Christ's truth.

It is the last period of the life of members of the royal family, spent in captivity, and the circumstances of their death that contain serious grounds for glorifying them in the guise of martyrs. They became more and more aware that death was inevitable, but they managed to keep the spiritual world in their hearts and at the moment of martyrdom gained the ability to forgive their executioners. Before the abdication, the sovereign told General D.N. Dubensky: “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and pass it on to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, not only the kingdom is ready, but also to give his life for the Motherland.

A few months later, Empress Alexandra wrote in captivity in Tsarskoye Selo: “How happy I am that we are not abroad, but with her [Motherland] we are going through everything. As you want to share everything with your beloved sick person, survive everything and follow him with love and excitement, so it is with the Motherland.

Does the canonization of the sovereign mean that the Church officially supports the monarchical idea and the political line of the last emperor?

Both in historical notes about Nicholas II and in his life, a rather restrained, and sometimes even critical assessment of his state activities is given. As for the renunciation, it was a politically unquestionably wrong act. Nevertheless, the guilt of the sovereign is to some extent expiated by the motives that guided him. The desire of the emperor to prevent civil strife with the help of renunciation is justified from the point of view of morality, but not from the position of politics ...

If Nicholas II had suppressed the revolutionary uprising by force, he would have gone down in history as an outstanding statesman, but he would hardly have become a saint. When submitting documents for glorification, the Synodal Commission for Canonization did not ignore the controversial episodes of his reign, in which the best sides his personality. But the last Russian emperor was canonized not for his character, but for his martyrdom and humble death.

By the way, there are not so many canonized sovereigns in the history of the Russian Church. And of the Romanovs, only Nicholas II was glorified as a saint - this is the only case in the 300 years of the dynasty. So there is no "tradition of the canonization of monarchs".

But what about Bloody Sunday, spiritualism hobbies and Rasputin?

The materials of the Synodal Commission for the canonization of the family of Nicholas II contain historical notes that analyze all these problems separately. Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905, the problem of the attitude of the sovereign and the empress towards Rasputin, the problem of the emperor's abdication - all this is evaluated from the point of view of whether this prevents canonization or not.

If we consider the events of January 9, then, firstly, we must take into account that we are dealing with mass riots that took place in the city. They were unprofessional suppressed, but it was really a mass illegal performance. Secondly, the sovereign did not give any criminal orders that day - he was in Tsarskoe Selo and was largely misinformed by the Minister of the Interior and the mayor of St. Petersburg. Nicholas II considered himself responsible for what happened, hence the tragic entry in his diary, which he, having learned about what had happened, left in the evening of that day: “A hard day! Serious riots broke out in St. Petersburg as a result of the desire of the workers to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in different parts of the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and hard!”

All this allows us to take a somewhat different look at the figure of the last king. However, the Church is in no hurry to justify Nicholas II in everything. A canonized saint is not without sin. The drama of passion-bearing, "non-resistance to death" lies precisely in the fact that it is precisely weak people, who often sinned a lot, who find in themselves the strength to overcome the weak human nature and die with the name of Christ on your lips.

Why were the servants of the royal family who were shot along with her not canonized? And in general, how does the feat of the family of Nicholas II differ from the feat of hundreds of thousands who accepted the same death, but were not glorified by the Church?

The servants of the royal family died as people who were fulfilling their professional duty to the sovereign. They are worthy of canonization, but the problem is that the Russian Orthodox Church has not yet developed a rite of glorifying the laity who are martyred, remaining faithful to their official or moral duty. The issue of glorifying people who died innocently during the years of unrest and political repression will certainly be resolved in the future: the 20th century created a precedent - millions of lay people became martyrs. And the Church remembers them.

The emperor abdicated the throne, ceased to be God's anointed, why then does the Church say that he became the redeemer of the sins of the whole people?

And here is just not the church's understanding of the problem. The Church never called Emperor Nicholas II the redeemer of the sins of the Russian people, for for a Christian there is only one Redeemer - Christ Himself. Similar ideas, as well as the idea of ​​the need to bring public repentance for the murder of the royal family, have been condemned by the Church more than once, since this is a very typical example of supplementing the Christian understanding of holiness with some new meanings of philosophical and political origin.

Rehabilitation

In June 2009, members of the Romanov family were rehabilitated by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 1 and pp. "c", "e" art. 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression", the Prosecutor General's Office decided to rehabilitate Romanov Mikhail Alexandrovich, Romanova Elizaveta Fedorovna, Romanov Sergey Mikhailovich, Romanov Ioan Konstantinovich, Romanov Konstantin Konstantinovich, Romanov Igor Konstantinovich, Romanova Elena Petrovna, Paley Vladimir Pavlovich, Yakovlev Varvara , Yanysheva Ekaterina Petrovna, Remez Fedor Semenovich (Mikhailovich), Kalin Ivan, Krukovsky, Dr. Gelmerson and Johnson Nikolai Nikolaevich (Bryan).

“Analysis of archival materials allows us to conclude that all of the above persons were subjected to repression in the form of arrest, expulsion and being under the supervision of the Cheka without being charged with a specific crime on class and social grounds,” an official representative told the Interfax news agency. Prosecutor General's Office Marina Gridneva. Earlier, the head of the Romanov dynasty addressed the Prosecutor General's Office with a request for the rehabilitation of members of the royal family. grand duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

(37 votes, average: 4,22 out of 5)

Comments

February 17, 2019 2:02

Try to pray to our Sovereign Emperor Nicholas 2 and his family. Ask for help in any need. Then it will immediately be clear to everyone why he was canonized. It is strange to see here a dispute about the holiness or unholiness of the Tsar, knowing that he and his family were brutally murdered by atheists and traitors of the Russian people. It seems that the Orthodox communicate on the Orthodox website. And such strange disputes.

August 8, 2018 18:40

In history, nothing happens by itself, everything has its roots and its beginning:
1. The abolition of serfdom in 1861 took place without the allocation of land to the peasants.

2. Employment of peasants (construction of railway roads) under Alexander II and
Alexander III.

3. The formation of the country from an agrarian to an industrial one (construction of mines, factories, ships, the North Sea shipping company, oil production, metallurgy, the continuation of the construction of railways, the beginning of aircraft construction, etc.), under Alexander III and Nicholas II.

4. The Trans-Siberian Railway and the CER were built. This entailed a large duty tax from the West.
Russia got off to a strong start. Westerners (in particular Churchill) said: “Another 10 years of such a rise in Russia, and we will never catch up with it, because Russia will distance itself from the West forever.

4. After the end of the First World War, Russia had to sit on the bench, and this gave her even greater advantages. England had already promised Russia the Strait of Gibraltar, which gave the country duty-free trade with the West.
But, Nicholas II abdicated, and then: Civil War, devastation, World War II, Khrushchev's corn and voluntarism, stagnation, perestroika, Afghanistan, two Chechen wars and Putinism (all this followed one from the other). When we figure this out, God only knows, and will we figure it out at all?
This is what happened to Russia after the abdication of Nicholas II.
There is no subjunctive mood in history, but it is clearly seen that all the troubles of Russia began after the abdication of our last Tsar Nicholas II. So did he deserve to be canonized as a saint!?

July 31, 2018 21:33

when Nicholas and his family were executed, they had already been ordinary citizens for 1.5 years / and here the royal family /

July 26, 2018 16:39

I do not recognize him as a saint!

July 26, 2018 16:30

badly done that he was canonized and made a saint! people were just divided! I then have a question, let's make Stalin a saint, he even left the country with nuclear weapons and a powerful economy, even though he was a cruel ruler!? And Nicholas 2 ruined the country and lost the war. everything is comprehended in comparison! I see the film why Saint Nicholas 2 there is a lot of semi-nonsense - I agree with something, but with something I don’t! of course, he did a good job of refusing to flee abroad and admitting his mistakes, but this does not make him a saint!

July 22, 2018 10:58

but can you tell me in 1905, on whose orders the workers in St. Petersburg were shot? a priest walked at the head of the column and people carried icons, sang a prayer.

January 27, 2018 23:03

Saints are those who serve Christ “in the rank in which they are called” “until the end, in spite of everything, without betraying the entrusted.” The work that You entrusted to me, I have done.”

December 29, 2017 12:40

Is there a procedure for canceling canonization ???

November 25, 2017 13:40

Ladies and gentlemen, everything is very simple: any church is first of all a political organization with its own non-obvious and non-advertised goals and objectives. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised at such a controversial decision on the canonization of the c.family. This is purely a political decision!

November 18, 2017 9:39

To the question “For what?”, the question “When?” answers well. In August 2000, when the current President became President.

November 18, 2017 9:21

They lose sight of how on March 8, 1917, Nikolai-2 was arrested
his personal adjutant general, and the personal company of the St. George Knights
Palace Life Grenadiers, to the sounds of the Marsigillaise, deployed over Headquarters
red flags. Guards, generals, State Duma from
oligarchs, army, Cossacks and ordinary proletarians, top and bottom, left and
right, future "reds", "whites" and others in question
the worthlessness of Nicholas II as a monarch turned out to be unanimous. Even
the "grand princely opposition" of siblings, mothers and uncles wished
persecute such an Autocrat. And after the arrest, another year and a half of a citizen of the former
the king was marinated, passing from hand to hand to various committees,
and no one dared to help out until the avengers were found. Could
wrong all those contemporaries?

November 12, 2017 20:20

Sorry for the harshness of the previous comment, apparently I'm not a Christian yet. My thought is that all of us, Russia, are the prodigal son who has not yet gone to the Father. And if we all sin, how can we blame anyone.

November 11, 2017 17:42

When Christ promised to destroy Israel, and they were destroyed after 70 years, Who Was He - an accountant? When they counted the righteous in Sodom, who was He? We are nothing better than that Israel and Sodom. God Is Love, this is a Christian truth, and this implies our admonition and education. Only the blind can fail to see such admonition to Russia in the 20th century (100 million people).

November 10, 2017 22:40

An even more difficult question arises. After glorification in the face of a saint, the Church stops praying for a person and begins to ask the saint. If there was a premature confession, we deprive the person of help from here, and we will not wait for help from there. And how to ask for help from family members?

November 10, 2017 20:34

1917 - Russian Flood! This opinion is shared by many priests. And it started in the 17th century. At the same time, the end of the Romanov dynasty was predicted. The head of the Church is Christ, not the king! The attempt of the state (the Romanovs) to head the Church led to a general apostasy from the faith. They betrayed all classes and estates, for which this Flood was allowed. Nicholas 2 did not turn out to be Noah, although he knew about the approach of the end. Sorry everyone, because the Flood is not over yet!

November 5, 2017 9:16

And for me, Nicholas 2, just like the last king in history, but not a saint at all.

October 30, 2017 20:24

Yes, a saint. But what about the execution of a peaceful procession in January 1905, several hundred people?

October 15, 2017 11:05

Christ taught us to judge by fruits. What we see: the society is divided. Oil was added to the fire by the film Matilda, and Poklonskaya's "Tsarebezhnitsa", and "Christian State" with arson. It turns out that this is the first emperor canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Why not Alexander 1 then, why not take Elder Fyodor Kuzmich seriously? The man was tormented by the sin of parricide, and for many years he prayed for it before God. Here is an example of a holy man. All that's left is a DNA test.

October 14, 2017 20:36

God! What a bucket of sewage in these comments. Gentlemen, non-shaking hands, if you do not want to recognize the Sovereign as a saint - please do not recognize, do not pray, do not consider yourself Orthodox. But at least keep the tact quiet! And temper your desire with rapture to wash the bones of a man who has long been killed by atheists. And keep in mind that our Church does not canonize anyone just like that! For this, there must be cases of miracles performed by this person; evidence of his righteous life; a lot more... And you undertake to talk about what you have no idea about. Church hierarchs know better. They graduate from seminary and have much more spiritual experience. No, you can't resist teaching the professionals. Shame on your head.

October 6, 2017 20:11

What to comprehend? Oil painting The result of the leadership is the end of the empire, the family was shot, there are no extreme ones.

October 5, 2017 15:01

To all those who, in their gloom, multiply blasphemy against the Sovereign and His family, I will say: your judgments are based on what you have been fed for 100 years by those who sought to make stupid cattle out of you, and to destroy those who disagree, like the holy martyrs! And, to my sorrow, I notice that so far they are doing well. Think about whose “gum” you are chewing while there is still time. And having realized, start searching, read, look, comprehend .. And having comprehended - pray and ask for forgiveness.
Yes, the devil is indeed strong. But God is stronger!
Forgive us, Sovereign!

October 4, 2017 12:00

For some reason, everyone here (and not only here) misses one significant nuance. Nicholas II Romanov was the head of state. This is a great responsibility. Responsibility for millions of your subjects and the fate of the country. Any head of state is responsible for everything that happens in this state (according to by and large, naturally). Nicholas assumed this responsibility voluntarily, but, as the years of his mediocre rule show, he could not cope with it. If you can't handle it - leave. But he did not leave himself until the very end, until February 1917, when he was actually forced to do so.
But mediocre government is not a problem, the problem is that the result of his rule was the death and suffering of millions of Russian people. Including those who were tortured and innocently killed!
So why was such a person canonized? For the fact that he quietly sat with his family in Tobolsk, and then in Yekaterinburg, while Russia was already choking on the blood of Russian people who were killing each other?
There is legal concept criminal action. Perhaps Nicholas did not commit criminal acts. But he committed a criminal inaction, and therefore I personally will never be convinced by anyone that his hands are clean. A person with unclean hands cannot be a saint!

P.S. And there is no need to say that, they say, he did not sign certain orders and decrees himself, that he was misinformed and deceived. I would like to understand everything. For some reason, no one misinformed Alexander III.
And yet it is not necessary to credit him with the fact that he did not flee abroad. He couldn't run! This is a myth, a fiction. He was arrested on March 9, and Kornilov arrested Alexandra even earlier. How would he run? On a horse? And therefore, he sat and waited limply and calmly for his fate, as he limply and calmly ruled the country for decades, letting everything take its course

September 28, 2017 16:02

There is a feeling that Nicholas 2 was appointed saint. A bunch of reservations, special explanations, assumptions. It's not serious.

September 17, 2017 18:24

Mayakovsky wrote that if the stars are lit -
Does that mean anyone needs it? The canonization and holiness of Nicholas II is definitely not needed by the people. The church needs it. Why? This is a great secret. But in my opinion, some kind of multi-way is buried here.

September 17, 2017 15:55

And Tsarevich Dimitri was canonized. Who is not even known for certain whether he was innocently murdered. And according to historical evidence, he went to the father of Ivan the Terrible in character (he loved to look at the torment of animals, or even laid his hand on himself). And in general he was illegitimate, that is, he had no special right to claim the throne. But it doesn't matter to the church, it's amazing.

September 14, 2017 16:12

A man who to a large extent contributed to the death of the Russian Empire, a mediocre leader and simply not the most sinless person, was canonized for his martyrdom. And the millions who died, both during his reign and after, are just a “gray mass”, unworthy of canonization!? Yes, the church is fair, you can’t say anything: the bourgeoisie go to heaven without a queue - that’s your motto.

September 14, 2017 11:22

Father George, as always, wrote everything excellently, his every word is balanced, but at the same time he is subject to a certain internal censorship, which, in fact, is understandable, because his official position obliges. At the same time, the fact that Nicholas II is a controversial and controversial figure is undeniable, as evidenced by at least these discussions. The canonization of a single saint has never been so opposed by the people. What exactly happened in the Ipatiev House, we do not know for certain - most of the documents have not yet been declassified and will not be declassified until the issue is so acute, about the remains - even the Russian Orthodox Church is not sure either. And how can we talk about the murder, if the corpses are not found? Based on Yurovsky's notes? The Diary of a Special Purpose Home? It's even funny... Are there any testimonies not of the participants in the crime, but of disinterested witnesses? As far as I know (I could be wrong) no. The question arises: is it too early? Perhaps, at first it is worth waiting for at least an unequivocal answer about the bones found? I do not dispute the sanctity of the royal family, but I cannot accept it unconditionally with all my desire. The fact that Nicholas II and his family were very kind and pious people is a fact. But after all, the Canonization Commission did not find sufficient grounds for the canonization of the royal family, studying the life of the emperor, empress and their children, before the abdication of the king from the throne, but found such grounds, studying the last time of the life of the royal family - the most obscure, vague, controversial and politicized ( in terms of time of interpretation) pages of their lives. Political rehabilitation could not but have an impact on the speedy glorification, because the rest of those shot in the Ipatiev House were not glorified, based on the position of Father George, in fact, because of the church bureaucracy - they have not yet managed to come up with and approve the rite of glorifying the laity) The glorification of the royal family acted as part of the political rehabilitation and condemnation of the first bloody Soviet years, while the issue of holiness, from my humble point of view, has not been fully explored.

August 19, 2017 23:48

Dmitry, Nicholas II and his family believed to the last that they would be saved. At first, Kerensky promised to send them to the Crimea, and later to England, but sent them to Tobolsk. Then Vyrubova prepared a conspiracy, but that's probably all. You don't have knowledge. The emperor did not condemn his family to death. Nothing could be done. Nobody wanted to save them!!!

August 17, 2017 21:50

Those who are against canonization apparently do not know the whole truth and do not read smart books ... Before condemning, get to the bottom of the truth. The royal family did not leave Russia. Didn't betray. Although they were not purebred Russians!!! This is how to love Russia! Those who argue that Nicholas II “killed” his family are very much mistaken! Read the essays of Western emigrants who saw all the action taking place. In particular, pay attention to the memoirs of Ivan Solonevich. After that, I hope everyone will understand everything and be ashamed of their attitude towards Nicholas and his elevation to the Face of Saints. And in the future, before condemning someone, think about whether you are ready to sacrifice yourself and your family for the sake of the Motherland. Or you, at the slightest opportunity, will run like “rats from a ship”.

August 3, 2017 10:22

Two quotes: "There is no 'tradition of canonization of monarchs'."

“As a member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, noted, “since ancient times, the rank of martyrs has been applied only to representatives of grand ducal and royal families.” So decide already whether it exists or not ...

August 3, 2017 4:29

Does the performance of professional duties with Christian humility interfere with canonization as martyrs? It's funny...

And the fact that Alexandra Fedorovna considered Rasputin a saint and spiritual mentor until the end of her life, and that she never repented of her error, does not in any way prevent her from being canonized? Even more fun.

May 27, 2017 3:54

Vladimir. And let's not slip into expressions like: I paid for all my mistakes consciously, with my life and the life of the whole family. Since when has the murder of one's family become an Orthodox deed. Maybe for this? Ban. Everything? What does not match your opinion. Is it offensive language? Let's do it. There are two diametrically opposed opinions. In the light of one and the same concept of our Orthodoxy. In one. Nicholas II is considered a saint. In another, all the circles of hell are prophesied to him. Two religious extremes of our Orthodox religion. Paradise? Or Hell? Question. Which of these concepts is more offensive? And strangely, for a religious person, the notion that a person is worthy of having a frying pan in hell is offensive.

May 26, 2017 0:54

Pay for your mistakes. You need your life. Not the life of your family. By his inaction, Nikolai practically killed his family, whom he could send abroad. Even if against their will. It is unlikely that the feat of redemption consists in dooming innocent children to death. With the same success. Nicholas could kill his family himself. And go out to the firing squad alone. Unfortunately, in Orthodoxy, only direct murder is punished. And for death due to criminal inaction. They do not punish. (Criminal inaction is a volitional passive behavior of a person, which consists in the fact that a person does not perform or improperly performs the duty assigned to him, as a result of which harm is caused to the objects of protection or a threat of causing such harm is created. Or leaving in danger) . And since for Nikolai, the object of protection was his family. That Nicholas, with whatever readiness he could go to the sacrificial altar, alone. First of all, protecting your family. For me, the frying pan sizzles according to Nikolai. But his family, really passion-bearers. Who accepted their death, from their compatriots, due to their political motives, malice and deceit.

March 20, 2017 6:29

There are no and cannot be absolutely sinless people on earth. Saints are not born, but they become, realizing their sins and renouncing them (with God's help, of course). The thief crucified next to Christ, having repented, got into Paradise. Our life is so arranged - you have to pay for everything. Nicholas || he paid for all his mistakes consciously, with his life and the life of his whole family, although he had the opportunity to go abroad. This is his feat of redemption. To whom much is given, much will be required. He understood it. Probably the Lord accepted his sacrifice, since the Church drained him. So it turns out that repentance cleanses and makes holy - the result of life. Which is what I wish for everyone.

February 12, 2017 20:12

Yes, the last emperor became a martyr, but hardly of his own free will! Millions died with much purer souls, but for some reason it was the emperor who was canonized. I think that this should not have been done, since all arguments against are balanced by a single argument - he was martyred! But how many people in Russia accepted no less martyrdom from 1905 to 1945?!
So it turns out that Nicholas 2 owes his holiness to his position!
If there is even the slightest speck on the biography of a candidate for saints, then you should not even consider such a candidate! Not because the person is bad. But because the reputation of the Saint should not cause the slightest doubt!