WI: Russian Monarchy restored in 1991.

What if the Russian monarchy was restored after 1991? Abid in a constitutional form. What would the effects be? Would they face condemnation? Who would become the new monarch of Russia?
 
OK, the Russians restore the monarchy in a limited constitutional form in 1991. Would they face condemation? Not from me. I figure its the Russians business, not mine.
 
Well the new Russian Empire wouldn't have any support from the United States, and with the old decrepit Vladimir Kirillovich seizing power, i don't think their rule will be stable. When he dies in 1992, the Communist Party will probably just take back power. There really wasn't popular support for a monarchy; even liberalization of the Russian economy from the soviet system wasn't majority popular until OTL 1993
 
I'd imagine you'd have to have an economically worse late 1980s for them to turn their backs so utterly on communism (granted, that was sort of done with the crash transition to capitalism, but restoring the monarchy, a symbol antithetical to Soviet power, would take some more hate)
 

samcster94

Banned
I'd imagine you'd have to have an economically worse late 1980s for them to turn their backs so utterly on communism (granted, that was sort of done with the crash transition to capitalism, but restoring the monarchy, a symbol antithetical to Soviet power, would take some more hate)
Exactly. Few people had any direct memory of the era anymore and saw the Tsars as bad.
 

Kaze

Banned
Who is the next heir? The family scattered to the winds. So finding a legitimate heir would be a problem. Then installing him without protest. Then there is the Russian Mafia and the post-Yelsin cronies that would want their cut. It would be as disaster in the making. Making Putin, Tsar of Russia would be far easier job since he is already there, has the power to be a Tsar, he has the army, and he does have most of the crown jewels in his possession - all he needs is a priest to crown him.
 
I don't see restoration of monarchy being possible after dissolution of USSR. There is not support of people and monarchists are politically very weak. So restoration would be very implausible. And there is not many alive anymore who personally remember monarchy and Soviets effectively discredited that.
 
There are two models. A return to Tsarist rule. That will never happen. The other model is the Western European constitutional monarchies in which the monarch is only a titular head of state. The latter is quite possible.
 
You could maybe finagle it via/alongside the orthodox church revival. In OTL, the Romanovs were canonised by the church outside of the USSR as matyred saints (killed due to their faith) in 1981 and later recognised as passion bearers (killed not because of their faith but faced their death as christ faced his) by the Russian church in 2000. Let’s say the church in Russia was stronger before the collapse fo the USSR, they may want to reclaim their ‘Russian-ness’ in the face of Sovietism through a co-opting of the Romanovs. If you had the fall of the USSR take on a significantly stronger religious redemptive character, and have that character embraced by the people, you could argue an impetus to ‘redeem’ the Russian people for the death of the Romanovs by enthroning a Romanov as Tsar of Russia. It’s a long shot but if you fiddle with the way the USSR collapsed then you might be able to make it plausible. Now even if you did, there would be significant non-religious Russians who would balk at the notion of a restored monarchy.

If it’s a genuinely constitutional monarchy then I don’t see how the Western powers can really object - beyond a sort of ‘are you really, really sure this is what you want to do?’ Afterall, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and Japan are all functioning democratic monarchies at this point. The Chinese would have some strong word to say but I doubt if any attention is paid. Everyone else will more or less shrug their shoulders about it as a move.
 
Last edited:
On one hand, it would be the greatest way of getting back at Communism for everything, and every last devoted Red, and Soviet leader would be rolling in their graves at everything they done not only being undone, but the Tsar himself/herself is coming back to power.

Who is the next heir? The family scattered to the winds. So finding a legitimate heir would be a problem. Then installing him without protest. Then there is the Russian Mafia and the post-Yelsin cronies that would want their cut. It would be as disaster in the making. Making Putin, Tsar of Russia would be far easier job since he is already there, has the power to be a Tsar, he has the army, and he does have most of the crown jewels in his possession - all he needs is a priest to crown him.

On that, it would either be Maria Vladimirovna, great-great-granddaughter of Alexander II of Russia, or Nicholas Romanov, descendant of Tsar Nicholas I.
 
Last edited:
On one hand, it would be the greatest way of getting back at Communism for everything, and every last devoted Red, and Soviet leader would be rolling in their graves at everything they done not only being undone, but the Tsar himself is coming back to power.



On that, it would either be Maria Vladimirovna, great-great-granddaughter of Alexander II of Russia, or Nicholas Romanov, descendant of Tsar Nicholas I.
Maria's predecessor would have still been alive in 1991. So question is could he have deferred to Maria, her being younger and not near death. Who knows if Nicholas would want to take the throne due to his age and a lot of other factors.
 

Kaze

Banned
Females are not allowed to succeed to the Russian throne per the laws of Paul the First (son of Catherine the Great), he did not want anyone like his mother coming to the throne.
 
Females are not allowed to succeed to the Russian throne per the laws of Paul the First (son of Catherine the Great), he did not want anyone like his mother coming to the throne.

In other hand, any male claimant wouldn't had been anymore eligible due their morganatic marriages so in this case Maria could be eligible as empress when she is from side of her mother Bargathion family which ruled Georgia several centuries.
 
Females are not allowed to succeed to the Russian throne per the laws of Paul the First (son of Catherine the Great), he did not want anyone like his mother coming to the throne.

We're talking about the resurrection of a defunct monarchy, so the inheritance laws would hardly apply. And furthermore, what Romanov would sit down and say to themselves 'well I was going to let my family reclaim its throne but now that it's a woman set to inherit i'll pass.'
 

Kaze

Banned
It does not work that way. The law of Paul of the First is technically in effect - inheritance laws is all you got in any legitimate succession. Russian Succession would have to go elsewhere. The best option is to ask in succession whether it is who is legitimate is ask - who has the blood, who has the army to take power, who has the church behind them, and who controls the bulk of the crown jewels? In this case Maria's father only has the blood, but he does not have the other answers - the army, the church (only has half the church), or the crown jewels. The only person has the army, Church, and a bulk of the crown jewels would be currently Putin - where-in you must go with the rules set down by the "Time of Troubles" where might makes right.
 
It does not work that way. The law of Paul of the First is technically in effect - inheritance laws is all you got in any legitimate succession. Russian Succession would have to go elsewhere. The best option is to ask in succession whether it is who is legitimate is ask - who has the blood, who has the army to take power, who has the church behind them, and who controls the bulk of the crown jewels? In this case Maria's father only has the blood, but he does not have the other answers - the army, the church (only has half the church), or the crown jewels. The only person has the army, Church, and a bulk of the crown jewels would be currently Putin - where-in you must go with the rules set down by the "Time of Troubles" where might makes right.
Remember in 1991 Putin is not nessesscarily a power yet. That doesn't really occur for another 5 years. At this point good ol Boris has the might.
 

iVC

Donor
Maria Vladimirovna is not an option due to the morganatic marriage her father, Vladimir Kirillovich, had with Bagration-Mukhransky family. This question is disputed due to Nicholas II and his family treated Bagration-Mukhransky as inferior and not equal to Romanov dynasty (no male line ancestor of hers had reigned as a king in Georgia since 1505 and her branch of the Bagrations, the House of Mukhrani, had been naturalised among the non-ruling nobility of Russia after Georgia was annexed to the Russian empire in 1801; Nicholas II had deemed marriage in this family of Princess Tatiana Constantinova in 1911 with another person of Bagrations, the House of Mukhrani, as morganatic).

However, Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, who maintained his own claims to dynastic status and to headship of the Romanov family, stated, "Strictly applying the Pauline Laws as amended in 1911 to all marriages of Equal Rank, the situation is very clear. At the present time, not one of the Emperors or Grand Dukes of Russia has left living descendants with unchallengeable rights to the Throne of Russia due to morganatic marriages'.

-----

But everyone of you forgot about the last and the most empowering option: possibility of raising the Zemsky Sobor, which had the right to elect the completely new tsar and therefore estabilish a dynasty anew.
So, basically, we have to summon the great assembly where electors must fill the list of possible tsars and have one of them be voted on the broad referendum.
 
Not going to happen. The Romanov family was shattered by the time the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian people had just gotten through the 69 year nightmare of an autocratic government. They wanted a change. They wanted freedom. Having a Tsar, even if symbolic, is just going to invite bad memories of a time where Russia was behind the rest of the world.
 
Having a Tsar, even if symbolic, is just going to invite bad memories of a time where Russia was behind the rest of the world.
Bad memories to who? Certainly not to Russians: they can compare tsarist Russia only to USSR and modern Russian Federation. USSR was impoverished totalitarian hellhole, RF is somewhat richer, but still corrupt and rump state. What they do know about the Empire, was that shops were full, and Russia was from Warsaw to Vladivostok.
People might not remember it directly, but they've heard plenty of stories from their grandparents how good it was under the tsar. They might consider it "of course old people think everything was better in the past", but they weren't hearing much horrors either.
Support for restoration is already 28% in general population, and 37% among young people.
 
Top