The house wants to go home

- Your political credo? - Always!

"12 chairs"

The self -proclaimed head of the Russian Imperial dynasty, great -great -grandson of Alexander II Maria Vladimirovna Romanova continues to actively strengthen her position. Having achieved from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the absurd rehabilitation of the members of the tsarist family executed by the Bolsheviks, she now made a new extravagant initiative: the Russian Imperial House headed by her wishes to return to Russia as a "public institution."

The project is not new. The chief of the office of the house, Alexander Zakatov, first spoke about him in March, directly imposing the possibility of returning to the rehabilitation of the Alapaev martyrs. True, then he called the royal dynasty not a public, but a "historical institution." Thus, we are talking about a thoughtful plan.

When reading the reasoning of Mr. Zakatov, the feeling of presence at the meeting of the Union Sword and screamed, where they ask: "Do you hope, Kirillovets?" In this case, the Kirillovites recorded all Russian citizens. This "person close to the emperor" believes that to return to the house of Maria Vladimirovna, a "special status enshrined in law" is needed. What kind of status is this is not quite clear. Family lawyer German Lukyanov, as an analogy, indicates the Russian Orthodox Church. In his opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church is a "public organization that is separated from the state, but it participates in all public events, has authority and influence." Mr. Sunses say about the goals of the Romanov venture, “members of the house could implement cultural and charitable programs.”

For a lawyer, to call the Russian Orthodox Church a "public organization" is a very original one. The Russian Orthodox Church is a religious association. It is this legal status for it that is enshrined in law. It is determined by Article 14 of the Constitution and the Federal Law "On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations." Under this legislative framework, the surname of the Romanovs clearly does not fall. If they want to register with the Ministry of Justice as a non -governmental public organization that implements cultural and charitable programs, there probably are no obstacles to this, provided that the budget is transparent.

This legally insolvent parallel immediately attracted the attention of the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church. “Of course, the status of a religious organization, which is the Russian Orthodox Church, is unlikely to be suitable for the Imperial House,” said Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the ROC in interaction with public organizations. “The status of an ordinary public organization is most likely not enough to the house, but it is unlikely to become a body under the current system.”

Skepticism about. Vsevolod is easy to understand. The relations of the Orthodox Church and autocracy have never been idyllic, almost always tense, and in separate historical periods - sharply confrontational. It is enough to recall the irreconcilable conflict of Ivan the Terrible with Metropolitan Philip, who ended with the violent death of the latter, and the abolition of the patriarchate of Peter I. The famous triune formula of the Nikolaev agitprop "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality" was only a slogan, but not the essence: Nikolai was a secular king of European, state bureaucracy - cosmopolitan. multi -confessional, understanding nationality as ethnography. The monarch, who abruptly changed the paradigm, became Alexander III, who realized the "administrative resource" of Orthodoxy and nationalism. The imperial idea gave way to the myth of the "symphony" of the Moscow kingdom.

Nicholas II tried to follow this line, who loved the Russian national costume, the pre -Petrine architectural style and the Orthodox rite. But his yard perceived the ball in Russian costumes as a masquerade, the deep spirituality of the reigning spouses - as a religious ecstasy, and the unity of the king with the people began the Khodynsky catastrophe. The king’s conflict was gradually brewing with the Church, which immediately after the renunciation declared the Provisional Government power “from God” (“the will of God happened”).

In the minds of the current rulers of Russia, perfect eclecticism reigns, incompatible ideologems are bizarrely combined. This is evident from the arguments of Vladimir Putin about the first Russian saints, princes Boris and Gleb, when visiting the workshop of Ilya Glazunov. It turns out that they are “of course, saints,” but they give a bad example to our contemporaries: “They went on and waited for them to be killed,” but they had to “fight for themselves, for the country.” But the princes are honored precisely for the refusal to unleash internecine enmity with his brother - with him, and not with a foreign aggressor, it was necessary to fight "for the country." And the word "country" in relation to the Kyiv principality of the XI century is hardly appropriate.

Alexander Prokhanov has his own stream of consciousness. Being asked about the possibility of the restoration of the monarchy, he broadcasts : “Russia is the country of great impromptu ... The state is dying in our eyes. The church rises among this death of state institutions, and the church is filled with a monarchical project. Here when the current state will completely rot, cease to exist, the church will endure a monarchist project from its church fences.”

But Alexander Zakatov resolutely does not agree with this “project”: “It was the Communists in the 17th year ... and even more so the state does not die, on the contrary, the state of Russia is revived. And the church cannot be saturated with monarchical projects ... And the tsarist power comes from the will of God, and not from some expromas and similar statements.”

This is such a naive and banal legitimation of the monarchy through the world -missing, which she, the monarchy, herself came up with that even to argue reluctance to argue.

Well, what about Paul’s teaching, which so often “prove” this legitimacy from above: “Let every soul be submissive to the Higher authorities, because there is no power from God” (Rom., 13: 1)? Yes, very simple. “The democratic or socialist republic,” writes Nikolai Berdyaev, “to the same extent is the kingdom of Caesar as the monarchy.” And further: "The words of the Apostle Paul were not said about the Christian power. There was no Christian state at that time."

Why did Maria Vladimirovna need to fence this garden with a "public institution"? She undoubtedly has high patrons in Moscow. At one time, the impression was created that the Kremlin political technologists refused to support the descendants of Kirill Vladimirovich in favor of the great -grandchildren of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, Nikolai and Dmitry Romanovich, who played the role of the initiators in the project of reburial of Empress Maria Fedorovna. But since then they have not shown anything, and the tireless Maria Vladimirovna strengthened her status. The Kremlin is needed as a symbolic figure, an integral part of the "national idea", and possibly a certain reserve script of the "struggle for the country".