WI: Russian Monarchy restored in 1991.

The question of who gets to be Tsar is an issue, since as has been brought up, the position of titular Tsar is disputed between two branches of the family.

The economic chaos of the 90s in Russia would probably mean the Communist Party under Gennady Zyuganov wins the elections and deposes the Tsar and his government (probably democratically). But then again, IOTL the CPRF and Zyuganov almost certainly defeated Yeltsin in 1996 yet officially Yeltsin won, so it's possible the neo-Tsarists can remain in 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.

Or Putin could restore the Tsar and change the Russian political system so he can be appointed prime minister "at his majesty's pleasure" as many times as he can win elections. That would be far more legitimate than crowning himself Tsar as well as help legitimise his endless term in power.
 
Restoring a titular constitutional Tsar is nothing to do with the exercise of power. It is in the same class as the restoration of the Church into it's place in Russia. It removes the pomp and glory from the exercise of power and can legitimise parliament as a seat of power by removing any head of state role from a president. It allows the people to rally around the state instead of a politician. In a modern constitutional monarchy the monarch wins by not playing in grubby politics.
 
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.

Depending on whether the Russia of 1991 considers either the Provisional government or the USSR as successor states to the Russian Empire (a likely outcome for the prestige and power of Russia in the international system), then the Tsardom was formally abolished and implicitly the Romanov’s were freed from Imperial law including what parts of their house law were legally enshrined (e.g. Pauline code) any other ‘laws’ they abided by were of their own familial volition rather than holding status under modern Russian law.

Given the reality of the succession laws as House Laws rather than 1991 Russian Law, the government of Russia could give the throne to conceivably anyone, the only people who would complain would be those Romanovs and monarchists who did not support the candidate. This could split any sort of monarchist sentiment and doom the experiment but it also might not.

But, I do also dearly love the idea of convening the Zemsky Sobor as Diterikhs tried to do in ‘22.
 

iVC

Donor
plenty of stories from their grandparents how good it was under the tsar

No. Just no. Every 8 from every 10 men were peasants in 1913. No storytelling about the blessed memory of good old days. Damned agrarian and land questions alongside with the lack of social mobility were the sins of the Russian Empire. In 1991 there were much more living witnesses of pre-1917 than nowadays (yes, Putin tries to exploit the blessed scenes of Russian Empire to battle the ghost of soviet welfare state and somehow justify current state of social inequality).

Limited monarchy as symbol of a new era -- yes. Limited monarchy as some kind of unaffected ruling committee -- yes. But not the Good Old Times Again.
 

iVC

Donor
Making Putin, Tsar of Russia would be far easier job since he is already there

Or Putin could restore the Tsar and change the Russian political system so he can be appointed prime minister

:confused:

My fellow althistory-colleagues. I know it's much easier to replace the plot gaps with already famous political figures. But please remember Putin was literally nothing till 1997 or even 1998: he was working in the St. Petersburg administration till 1996, then he briefly became a clerk in the Russian President Case Management Bureau, and, finally, became one of members of Presidential Supervisory and Control Commitee in 1997. He worked there for one and half years before he was moved to the Federal Security Service in the mid-1998.

I must humbly refresh your memory: there was a whole bunch of possible successors of Yeltsin: Sergey Shakhray, Boris Nemtsov, Alexander Lebed', Sergey Kirienko, Sergey Stepashin and, finally, just before Putin, Nikolay Aksyonenko, chief railroads minister. Yeltsin even rang to the Duma in May of 1999 and promised to appoint Aksyonenko as prime minister but his candidature was dismissed due to Anatoly Chubais opposition.

Putin himself was appointed as young and bright contradictor to old and wily prime minister Yevhene Primakov, who was previously appointed by Yeltsin as some kind of climbdown to the communist and socialist parties in Duma. Primakov was strongly associated with old soviet elites and was promising to compete for presidency. Therefore Putin was just an unexpected wild card who was chosen for his ability to spotlight the senility of Primakov.

BUT! If we do postulate that some kind of consensus was made in 1990s and new dynasty of limited monarchs was established as arbiters then Yeltsin do not have any need to raise somebody like Putin or Nemtsov or Kirienko to withstand against amalgamating soviet elites. The only possibility for limited monarch to survive the 1990s would be to work like mediator or referee between Yeltsin, Rutskoi, oligarchy, former soviet elites and impoverished population.
 
Last edited:
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.

Soviet era joke:

An old woman asks her granddaughter: "Granddaughter, please explain Communism to me. How will people live under it? They probably teach you all about it in school." "Of course they do, Granny. When we reach Communism, the shops will be full – there'll be butter, and meat, and sausage … you'll be able to go and buy anything you want..." "Ah!" exclaimed the old woman joyfully. "Just like under the Tsar!"
 
Soviet era joke:

An old woman asks her granddaughter: "Granddaughter, please explain Communism to me. How will people live under it? They probably teach you all about it in school." "Of course they do, Granny. When we reach Communism, the shops will be full – there'll be butter, and meat, and sausage … you'll be able to go and buy anything you want..." "Ah!" exclaimed the old woman joyfully. "Just like under the Tsar!"
I was actually thinking about this joke when I was writing :)
 
Soviet era joke:

An old woman asks her granddaughter: "Granddaughter, please explain Communism to me. How will people live under it? They probably teach you all about it in school." "Of course they do, Granny. When we reach Communism, the shops will be full – there'll be butter, and meat, and sausage … you'll be able to go and buy anything you want..." "Ah!" exclaimed the old woman joyfully. "Just like under the Tsar!"

I mean, we have similar jokes about the Chukchi getting sober one day and asking what happened to the Tsar. Funny stuff for sure, provided you're urban, comfortable, and had everything growing up. All my great-grandmother could really remember about the Tsarist era was when the guys with the horses came and sabered those other guys out in the rye.

In reality, it was my father who is a child of the 50s that was the one telling my grandparents how good Tsarism was, and they were like, well alright dear, whatever you say, aren't young people amusing.
 
There are similar takes on 19th century Britain, with a rosy glow given to rural life by the grandchildren of those who fled from rural poverty to a better life in industrial towns. Indoor work, regular pay and something to spend it on. Yet you did not see the mass of people fleeing from filthy crowded urban housing and dangerous dirty hard industrial work to the nice clean open air rural life if the golden glow model were real.

But in this post the comparison is not with the reality of Tsarist life and a Tsarist government but with the Tsar as an icon. Not as a ruler but as a national image. No bad thing when you look at assorted world presidents who actually wield power and need lightproof underwear. I will add Brazil, Afghanistan, Bulgaria and Romania to the list of 'would benefit from a titular monarchy'.
 
But in this post the comparison is not with the reality of Tsarist life and a Tsarist government but with the Tsar as an icon. Not as a ruler but as a national image. No bad thing when you look at assorted world presidents who actually wield power and need lightproof underwear. I will add Brazil, Afghanistan, Bulgaria and Romania to the list of 'would benefit from a titular monarchy'.
Bulgaria does not belong on this list, unless you have in mind some other dynasty than Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The last thing Bulgaria needs is for a greedy, thieving mediocrity like the last King to get a permanent position as head of state.
 
Bulgaria does not belong on this list, unless you have in mind some other dynasty than Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The last thing Bulgaria needs is for a greedy, thieving mediocrity like the last King to get a permanent position as head of state.
Were Simeon to fit your description he made astonishing mistakes in refusing the return of assorted properties. The power brokers behind the scene have never forgiven him for calling their bluff and actually leading a political party and successfully putting himself up for public vote and emerging as the leading party and Prime Minister. The description does fit many of the Bulgarian political elite though. Corruption remains the main drag on Bulgaria's progress. Remember, my aim is to have a monarchy that is the titular head of state not the leading politician. There are too many of them and they need a politically disinterested icon who can publicly ask the questions without fear to a career.
 
Were Simeon to fit your description he made astonishing mistakes in refusing the return of assorted properties.
He did claim various properties that did not belong to his family (after claiming that he would not do so). What are you even talking about?

The power brokers behind the scene have never forgiven him for calling their bluff and actually leading a political party and successfully putting himself up for public vote and emerging as the leading party and Prime Minister. The description does fit many of the Bulgarian political elite though. Corruption remains the main drag on Bulgaria's progress. Remember, my aim is to have a monarchy that is the titular head of state not the leading politician. There are too many of them and they need a politically disinterested icon who can publicly ask the questions without fear to a career.
I'm well aware that Simeon wanted to be President and not Prime Minister and that power brokers (ie people around the then President) prevented this. Yes, Bulgarian politicians are corrupt but they can at least be replaced by elections. Simeon can hardly serve as an unifying figure, having proven that he puts his own financial interests ahead of those of the public and above the laws.
 
Top