Grand Duke of Russia gave an interview to a newspaper "The Tomorrow"

Lev Tikhomirov, in his work "monarchical state," written in the early twentieth century and which gave a theoretical justification of the monarchical principle, wrote the following: "Humanity is not always correctly guess what it is. History of Greece, the general opinion of all her political life and civil, has been a process of democratic development. And yet, it actually finished a world monarchy of Alexander of Macedon, who was the representative of cultural affairs, prepared by the preceding period of development of democracy. This exodus of the Greeks did not expect to do nothing with Themistocles, Pericles. Do not imagine, and the gallant Republicans Rome since the Punic wars of the future appearance of Caesar and Augustus "

According to opinion polls, about 20% of the citizens of modern Russia are ready to support the revival of the monarchy. It is possible however, that each of the respondents understood monarchy as something of their own. The spread of opinion in this matter is extremely wide. For some preferred a constitutional monarchy, it is decorative: as a kind of symbol that can stabilize the political life in the country and to emphasize the historical continuity of epochs. Others, conversely, looking forward to the autocratic system await full power of Caesar, which will provide the necessary centralization of power, clean Augean stables "democracy", restore the international status of Russia, arranged inside the country a semblance of the kingdom of justice.

I remember, the hero of the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov, watching crimes of bandits during the civil war, and cried in their hearts: "I am - a monarchist by conviction. But at the moment the Bolsheviks are required ..." Now you can hear something else: "I am - a socialist by conviction, but without the wise and strong king of Russia did not get out of the quagmire ... "

Editor of portal Pravaya.ru, historian Alexander Eliseev wrote once in his article "The Tsar and the Soviets!" ("Tomorrow" № 47, 2007) wrote this: "... autocracy and self-government - this is the formula of the dialectical synthesis, through which you can restore the age-old Russian rule at the next level."

Today's monarchist movement is contradictory and heterogeneous. It is the projection of the mysteries and paradoxes of denial, of what happened in March 1917. The religious meaning of the termination and restoration of the monarchy in Russia is obvious to so many Orthodox believers, though not universally accepted.

Ideological, spiritual and political nuances of monarchical consciousness superimposed on the unresolved questions about a possible way to establish a monarchy in Russia.

Modern Russia's monarchists are divided into two main groups: the so-called "Cathedral Folk" and "Legitimists." That is, the supporters of the election at the Council a new tsar, unrelated to any dynastic preferences, and supporters of the Romanov dynasty.

The first group in the early 90-ies took shape as a very powerful movement, supporting the new All-Russia Convention (Zemsky Sobor), which should elect the next tsar. Main of this movement was a monarchist and populist Vyacheslav Klykov. He urged the arrival of the new ruling dynasty, namely -the descendants of Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov. Public euphoria ended after Gaidar's reforms and shootings in 1993 and the activities of the cathedral monarchists came to nothing.

Regarding "Legitimists", here we see several trends, targeting various competing branches of the Romanov dynasty, whose representatives were born and live outside Russia." But today, the European monarchs and representatives of the ruling houses, who lost their thrones, recognize the inheritance right only Kirillovichi, which is well known and we have.

The heir to the throne of Russia, son of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, and Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia Hohenzollern, the Grand Duke George of Russia - the youngest of Kirillovich. He was born in 1981 in Madrid. From his father side, he is the great grandson of german Emperor Wilhelm II, from his mother – great-great-great grandson of Russian Emperor Alexander II. Native language of George - French, although he readily speaks and reads Spanish, English and Russian.

Prince George for their incomplete thirty years had to learn in Oxford, to work in the European Parliament, and then the agency of the European Commission on Nuclear Safety in Luxembourg. Since 2008 he works as Advisor to CEO, Norilsk Nickel, Russia, introducing this corporation in the Nickel Institute (Brussels, Belgium).

Grand Duke George has kindly agreed to talk with representatives of the newspaper “Tomorrow". Personality and perceptions of the Romanov heir, of course, will be of interest to most of our readers.

Tomorrow. Your Highness, being heir to the Imperial House, do you see yourself as a potential monarch?

Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich. Status of Imperial House head, which is now my mother, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her heir, of course, contains within itself the possibility sometime in the future to lead not only the dynasty, but also country. Of course, this can only happen if Russian people would again support the monarchical principle. If the day will come when I called to this duty, I do not turn from it. But in the present, as all the sovereigns of our home in exile: My great-grandfather, grandfather and my mother - I try to live according to the well-known principle of "Do what you must, and whether that will happen." It would be foolish to sit and dream: "And what will I do if I will ascend to the throne? I try to be useful to my Motherland in my today’s position, helping my mother in her duty and accumulating professional experience and knowledge that will be useful in any case.

Tomorrow. How, in your opinion, monarchist idea could be implemented in contemporary situation?

GD It is necessary freely expressed will of a nation-wide for the monarchy’ restoration. I'm sure if people will get honest and objective information, they will make the right conclusions and choose one that fits its genuine national interests. History shows that people mechanical majority often make mistakes. But if people feel not like "mass" and "population", but as individuals, united by common values, respect of their ancestors and themselves and willing that following generations will respect them - then people would not make mistakes. Revival of the monarchy after the Troubles of XVII century, 400 years since the end of which we will celebrate soon, clearly illustrates my words.

Tomorrow. Could the Russian monarchy be restored not as the Empire, but in the frames of the local "national state"?

GD In the foreseeable future, I do not see any prerequisites that Russia has lost its multinational character, regardless of type of its political state. But if you talk in theory ... This Empire - this is not a system of oppression of one nation by the others, but the family of fraternal peoples, united by common goals and interests, which keep the unity in diversity. Russia had originally been a multinational state and throughout its history has sought to integrate people into a single empire. But along with this, in our past there were periods when dominated by centrifugal forces. In its time to revive a central state was able to Muscovy, initially very small and even smaller than that in the impact of other similar "local national states." The reason for this, in my opinion, lies in the fact that Muscovy, on the one hand, managed to defend the hard monarchical principle, and on the other - their policy was sufficiently flexible and modern. Yes, they were able to compromise, and without betraying the principal and over several generations strategically preparing the union and the liberation of their country. Nowadays, Russia, indeed, because of the severe consequences of several revolutions of the twentieth century, thrown far back. But, I repeat, I am confident that before the "local national state" we do not ever sunk. On the contrary, I believe that Russia has a chance not only to maintain its current territorial integrity, but also attract the fraternal peoples of the former Russia Empire by the updated forms of integration. Perfectly aware that it will not pre-revolutionary Empire and the Soviet Union. However, an appeal to the best examples from the past will enable us to preserve, at least, a single cultural space.

Tomorrow. Many of the current conservative models start with the obligatory defamation of the Soviet period. How do you see the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? Political revenge or a kind of vanguard project for the Russian future? Restoration or attempt to unite the nation with consideration of the Soviet experience?

GD Very serious question. Restoration of the monarchy in any case can’t be revenge. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated it in the hope of reconciling and preventing fratricide. Imperial House of Russia did not participate in the Civil War, when it still broke. We are not "red" and not "white", and we can’t have revenge sentiments. Revolution is a terrible national tragedy. Our Dynasty greatly suffered from it. But our entire nation suffered a lot, including the direct creators and participants of the revolution from both sides. If our thoughts and desires towards the future, we must stop to reopen old wounds and remember each other offenses. My mother always called compatriots seek not what divides but what unites all of us. If we want to return Russia to its place in the world, we should not continue to blame each other, and learn to forgive and ask forgiveness. And to go forward with goodwill and solidarity, not with hatred and revenge.

Monarchy - is the idea of true national unity. Being a legitimate and hereditary, that is continuous in historical time, it brings together the country's citizens, not only for the sake of some short-term goals, but for centuries-old traditions in the name of the present and for the future. The monarchy is obliged to take into account any experience - both positive and negative. We should not forget anything to avoid a repetition of evil. Need to give moral and legal appraisal of the past. For example, nothing can justify the violent nature of the God-fighting totalitarian regimes and its class or racial genocide, when millions of people were wiped out for what they could not change under any circumstances - for their national or social origin. But in condemning the crimes and errors, with the dirty water does not have to splash out a child. There were a lot of bright and heroic in our people life in the Soviet period. My great-grandfather Emperor Kirill and my grandfather, Emperor Vladimir Kirillovich always called for a clear distinction between the godless and inhuman Marxist-Leninist ideology and the creation of the national spirit, which breaks all the shackles.

Imperial House of Russia believes that the monarchy - is a modern and progressive system of government, which has a future. It is able to synthesize the positive experiences of all periods of our history, including the Soviet one. Even my great-grandfather in one of his hits made a very correct idea: "No need to destroy any facilities, life caused, but we need to turn away from those who desecrate the human soul." I fully share this view. That is my position.

Tomorrow. Monarchic project must necessarily rely on a layer of "sovereign people". From which strata of society, in your opinion, they should come? The oligarchs, the army, the intelligentsia, etc.

GD Monarchy - a national idea. It can’t rely on some specific classes and social groups. One major advantage of the legitimate hereditary monarchy is that in this system, the head of state is not obliged to his authority to anyone but God. And therefore it can be a true arbiter, the Father of the nation, for whom all the members of his family are precious. The monarchy must have support at all levels of society. Of course, the state is unthinkable without a hierarchical structure. Another thing is that the ruling class should be continuously updated with the best representatives of all social strata and groups. And these very strata and groups should be allowed to occupy its worthy place in a legal state and civil society, possessing all the necessary rights and responsibilities.

Tomorrow. Your ancestors - the tsars and emperors. Do you feel any particular, involvement in the history of your family, figuratively speaking: Do you have dreams you about dynasty’ past?

GD Dreams ... not dream, but the involvement, of course, I feel like probably everyone feels a connection with their ancestors. Even if he does not think there is, after all, it is genetics. Our ancestors have left this world, but some small part of them continues to live in us, to influence our character, temperament, and, consequently, our actions. The feeling of belonging to the family inspires self-discipline. We must try to behave so as not to disgrace our ancestors and our descendants to not be ashamed of us.

Tomorrow. Is the role of the House Heir the burden to you, does you status bother you in your life?
GD Yeah ... A negative answer to your question would imply frivolity, and the positive - excessive pride. In fact, any position dealing with people trust to you and their hopes is a difficult burden. But at the same time, it inspires and allows you to survive in difficult life situations. I can’t say that my situation bothers me. But I understand that this is a big responsibility. I have the right to privacy, especially because now I have no public duties. But I still can’t do much of what any other individuals could do. My mother and grandparents raising me put in my mind kind of traffic light. If there is even a thought: "Why me, in the end, should do or not do so-and-so?" Then suddenly red light lit. Sometimes it's a human being annoyed that maybe missed some opportunities, but then, over time and common sense, I am convinced that self-restraint in most cases was correct and useful. God brought our world so that everything in life is balanced, so to complain about the fate of never worth it.

Tomorrow. Do you have any preferences in Russian history, favorite heroes or anti-heroes?

GD Calm and confident style of the reign of Alexander III is close to me. During his reign Russia was a real superpower, whose power was based not on fear and dislike, but in sincere respect. When he died, even geopolitical enemies of our country paid tribute to him, because he was the guardian of international equilibrium. I think undeservedly overlooked John III, who in 1480 was destined to a peaceful end of foreign domination. And in fact he is the father of the sovereignty of our country. Such rulers as John III, maybe not famous for great battles and grandiose reforms, but really they have done more for the country than many brilliant rulers. In general, the main hero of Russian history, of course, is our people. They are often sacrificed for the sake of supposed "public interest". But what are these interests and whose are they, if for the sake of them millions of people being sacrificed? The true heroes are not those who spectacularly won the struggle for power, to bump off their fellow citizens, without counting, but those who have had successes, saving people lives. And when it really is a threat to national existence, our nation does not need to be convinced to make sacrifices. An example of this - all the wars from the campaigns of Oleg and Svyatoslav to the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

Interview by Andrey Smirnov and Andrey Fefelov