Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn into office as the 45th President of the United States, I referred to various photographs of the Trump family in their multi-million-dollar New York penthouse residence. “The Donald” is, of course, featured prominently front and center, with his (third) glamorous, trophy wife perched nearby; along with their son, Baron, and the real estate magnate’s adult children. Almost as prominent are the slew of plush, gilded furnishings spread throughout the abode. I kept thinking I’d seen similar photographs before; various pictures from newspapers and magazine, as well as recollections of a TV show that truly embodied 1980s-era chic and gluttony: “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” (Trump was featured in the very first episode and made recurring appearances.)
At one point, though, I turned to my massive collection of books and spotted one that displayed an even more accurate depiction of the Trump family; another clan who lived long ago in similar plush surroundings, perched high above the lowly masses. Lindsey Hughes’ “The Romanovs: Ruling Russia 1613 – 1917” describes the life and times of Russia’s last monarchal family. For more than 300 years, the Romanovs directly impacted world politics with their wealth and power; creating a massive empire that – even in today’s watered-down version – stretches across two continents. From Tsar Michael to Tsar Nicholas II, the Romanovs maintained a steady grip on the region; impressing their subjects and striking fear in their enemies.
But, by the time the dynasty marked its tercentenary in 1913, that grip had begun to weaken. Like the rest of Europe’s royal families, the Romanovs remained encapsulated in their heavily-fortified palatial environs; far removed from the sundry plights tormenting their own people and oblivious to the real world lurking outside those jewel-encrusted walls. Nicholas II was the first of the European monarchs to be ousted from power, as World War I intruded into Russian territory, and a growing internal revolution stalked the Romanov family.
While the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia, essentially marked the start of World War I, the death of the Romanovs signified the end – not just to the war, but also to the long-held concept that power and wealth are best held in the hands and pockets of a blessed few and that those few are part of the same bloodline that is never to be disturbed or questioned. It was shocking enough to international onlookers that a single gunman was able to kill Franz and Sophia with a few shots from a pistol; even as many outside of Europe initially wondered where was this place called Austria-Hungary. But, as news of the Romanovs’ demise trickled out, the anger and frustration of an oppressed people became brutally apparent. Nicholas and his immediate family, along with a handful of servants, were peppered with bullets in a basement far removed from their stately home; their bodies burned beyond recognition and dumped in neighboring woods.
World War I was actually the culmination of the growing anarchist movement, which had its genesis in the heated anger of economic and social inequality among Europe’s working classes, before spreading westward across the Atlantic to plant itself in the U.S. and Canada. Even México had succumbed to the wrath of the peasant masses; with outlaws Francisco “Pancho” Diaz and Emiliano Zapata joining forces to lead a revolt against a semi-monarchal dynasty of wealthy landowners and bankers.
This was the dawn of the 20th century; where ordinary people – the one who really keep a nation moving – finally stood up and collectively announced, “Enough!” The rampages continued, as Europe began losing their colonial holdings in Africa and elsewhere, and Latin American nations saw military dictatorships crumble in the face of concerted human rights’ campaigns. One of the 20th century’s last acts of peasant anarchy came with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In Romania, the chaos became lethal when leader Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, were dragged before a court trial staged by their otherwise lowly subjects, found guilty and lynched in public. That something so horrific could happen in 1989 shocked the world. But, for the oppressed peoples of staunchly communist Romania, it was perhaps the best Christmas present they’d ever had.
To some extent, anarchism actually sprouted roots with the American Revolution, where a mass of English immigrant descendants decided they simply did not want to be slaves to the British Crown. Shortly afterwards, French commoners took a queue from their American counterparts and launched their own revolution; one where they didn’t just extract their regal hoodlums from gigantic estates, but relished in the sight of royal heads literally rolling across wooden platforms. Throughout the 19th century, Spain and Portugal stood virtually helpless as their colonial holdings in the Americas wrenched themselves from the clutches of royal decree – only to stumble through the difficulties of independence and struggles with democracy; quagmires that exist to this day.
In 1900, China’s Boxer Rebellion was a desperate attempt by commoners to boot out European interlopers, which included assaults on Christian missionaries and converts. Some 100,000 people lost their lives in the various battles that summer. But a growing dissatisfaction towards the Qing Dynasty and the family of Emperor Puyi (sometimes spelled P’u-i) compelled the working classes to descend upon the sacred and mysterious “Forbidden City.” Puyi was only 3 years old when he ascended to the throne in 1908; less than four years later he was forced to abdicate and lived out the rest of his life as an undistinguished commoner. At the start of the 20th century, it seemed that China was poised to endure the same experience as the African continent: be carved up by European colonialists. But, if the Chinese people no longer wanted single family rule, did anyone believe they’d let bands of foreigners from the other side of the globe do the same? By the 1930s, China had evicted the Europeans.
World War II fractured Europe. A few royal families managed to survive; most notably in Great Britain. But they were all financially and morally exhausted. This culminated in the U.K. losing their colonial hold on India and Pakistan in 1947. Next came the vast continent of Africa, where European decolonialization occurred over the ensuing four decades; a massive undertaking that involved millions of people on a scale the world had never experienced before.
The 20th century’s anarchist fangs reached across the globe, toppling the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos and Haiti’s Jean-Claude Duvalier in the 1980s. One of its high points was the release of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela in 1990 and the dismantling of that country’s brutal apartheid regime within a decade. South Africa had been the last of Europe’s many colonial assets to gain independence.
A low point, though, was Argentina’s futile attempt to wrest control of the Falkland Islands from Great Britain in 1982; a brief conflict that resulted in more than 900 military deaths. Why the U.K. insists on retaining control of this tiny cluster of isolated rocks 7500 miles from the homeland remains less of a mystery than a prime example of colonialist arrogance. (Some Britons still refer to the U.S. as “the colonies.”) While Argentina was in no political or financial position to engage in such a daring military feat at the time, they have since matured and solidified their infrastructure. In 2012, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner blocked two British cruise ships that had visited the Falklands from docking on the mainland. Argentina has vowed to enforce further similar bans in the future, which could damage the Falklands’ vital tourist industry.
In the Middle East, anarchism produced schizophrenic results. Anti-royal sentiments led to the 1973 deposition of the Barakzai, Afghanistan’s royal family. That may have set the stage for the Soviet Union’s bloody but futile attempt to annex that country in 1979. However, the U.S. became unexpectedly mired in the antagonism of the Iranian populace towards their own royal family, the Pahlavis. Shah Reza Pahlavi had crowned himself emperor in 1967 and led a brutal regime where dissidence was punished with unprecedented violence and oppression – tools common among wicked oligarchs. Pahlavi’s 1978 ouster led to the notorious Iran Hostage Crisis, which caught both the U.S. and the world completely off-guard. Concerned more with the Soviet threat and the oddly-christened “Cold War,” the U.S. government unwittingly experienced its first battle with Islamic extremism.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, royal families held on in Jordan and Syria. The discovery of oil on the Arabian Peninsula in the 1930s allowed the region’s ruling families and their subjects to be pulled up from the doldrums of a tribal / fiefdom-style existence and dropped into the vats of unimaginable wealth. No one seemed to care that women couldn’t drive cars, much less vote.
While anarchist anger dominated the 20th century, does the same hold true now? Studying the Trump clan, I can’t help but conjure up images of the Romanovs. Economic inequality is just as great now as it was a hundred years ago. We’ve returned to that “Gilded Age” period where the bulk of the world’s wealth and power sit in the grubby hands of a privileged few. The recent “Great Recession” was the worst economic downturn the U.S. had experienced since the “Great Depression.” Both debacles were the result of greed and political incompetence; the former mess instigated by the verbally-challenged scion of another monarchal-type dynasty: the Bush family. Aside from producing two of the worst presidencies within a generation, the Bush clan’s close ties to the Saudi royal family essentially allowed planning for and execution of the 9/11 events to go unnoticed; thus culminating in one misguided war and another illegitimate one, as the economy glided atop a housing bubble that didn’t just pop – it exploded. If regulations and measures a liberal president had established some eight decades ago hadn’t been in place, both the U.S. economy and the U.S. populace would have sunk into chaotic and murderous oblivion.
Power and wealth usually go together; conjoined twins that sometimes have no mercy for the commoners squirming beneath them. The leftist “Occupy Wall Street” movement didn’t gain as much traction as the right-wing “Tea Party,” which claimed passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 as the seeds of their founding; when, in fact, it was the election of the nation’s first biracial president that pissed them off. If they were so upset about undue taxation, they would have put blame for the economic downturn where it belonged: on the backs of their own Washington leaders who keep propagating the myth of “trickle-down economics.”
But the rise of a foul-mouthed, thrice-married bombastic businessman to the highest office in the land has lit another fire beneath millions of ordinary Americans frustrated with a “jobless recovery”; no one going to jail for causing the recent banking / home loan debacle; and endless conflicts in the Middle East. The illegitimacy of Donald Trump’s placement in the White House makes a mockery of the American democratic experience. Our 18th century predecessors carefully designed a unique concept of governing and valiantly fought against the very people who brought them here. The United States was an outlandish experiment that could have gone seriously wrong if so many people hadn’t realized its true value and potential over the ensuing centuries. As a nation, we didn’t want a group of self-righteous elitists – families riddled with colorblindness, hemophilia and unbridled arrogance – to rule over us and not be questioned. Our American forbears understood that humanity must work as a unit to achieve the best possible society. The various civil rights actions of the past 200 years – from abolitionism to gay/lesbian rights – have helped to refine this strange idea known as democracy.
Looking again at the Trump clan, I still can’t help but think of the Romanovs and realize how much they all have in common. However, I don’t wish the same fate upon the Trumps. As brutal as we often seem to the international community, that’s not what Americans do or who we are.
Either way, we didn’t want or need a royal family 240 years ago to impose its fickle will upon our lives – and we don’t want or need one now.
Film footage of Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation in May 1896. It’s one of the earliest known (and one of the fewest surviving) motion pictures and the first known example of the new medium utilized to capture a major news event.
13 responses to “Romanov Redux”
Wow. This was a really incredible piece!
Thank you, Caleb.
This was so very well done!
Thank you, Val.
Interesting comparative post. Perceptive in similarities between the Trump and Romania photo. The old elite versus the contemporary self made elite. Both are or were often arrogant and non believers in social justice, perhaps? I wonder what sort of world it would be without the critical motivator of oil?
I thought about the Romanovs earlier this year, when I realized Donald Trump had his adult children (and son-in-law) occupying White House positions. That’s now against the law, so they’re not taking salaries. The idea of nepotism is direct contrast to the concept of a true democracy. The U.S. freed itself from British rule specifically because our forebears didn’t want to be ruled by a monarchy. The last U.S. president to appoint a child to a White House position was Dwight D. Eisenhower. The last president to appoint a relative was John F. Kennedy who had his younger brother, Robert, as U.S. Attorney General. It’s because of this latter situation that nepotism was outlawed in our federal government.
U.S. presidents often select close friends and / or constituents to fill their cabinet posts. After all, why not work with people you already know and trust? I certainly don’t wish for the Trumps to end up like the Romanovs. But the entire outfit smells of covert nepotism.
I believe we’d be much better off without the strong desire for oil. Then again, the powers surrounding that precious resource have created a system for themselves. We’ve seen the same thing with other valuable minerals, such as diamonds, and now, even water. The need for water is already starting to cause disturbances in certain parts of the globe. I fear that will only get worse.
Thanks for your input!
To me, the only Romanov who needs any airtime is Natasha (but she is a fictional character in a world of superheroes so doesn’t really count lol)
The photo of Turnip turns my stomach due to the women having to place their hands on his shoulders. Rather than standing all together, he is separated from his son(?) and the woman behind him has to stand with her hands down, whereas the man with the kind face – the kind I’d like to punch – has to have women with their hands on him to show they belong to him.
I understand that the way the American system is set is so that even the common man can make a difference to the country, but the line has to be drawn somewhere to stop the likes of him stepping in and destroying a country that was one of the topmost in the world and turning it into the laughing stock of the west.
Thank you for your candor, Alastair. Indeed, it is embarrassing for me – someone not just born and raised in the U.S., but whose ancestry goes back to before its official founding – to realize the type of lecherous cretin we have in the White House. His third trophy wife didn’t move into the tax-payer-funded abode until earlier this month, which meant average tax-payers were funding the Trump’s New York City residence. The U.S. has set itself up as the gleaming example of democracy; a bastion of fair voting and free speech. I used to take the term “Leader of the Free World,” in reference to the president, literally. To me it wasn’t just a coy statement; a patriotic play on words. I felt it actually meant something. That’s pretty much how the U.S. has presented itself to a global audience.
Since the election of George W. Bush, though, I’m not so certain. What should have been an extraordinary period of unprecedented economic and societal growth after the start of a new century and a new millennium has collapsed into a pathetic nightmare of ‘How the hell did we get here?!’ I mean, seriously! What went wrong? What deity did we piss off so badly to warrant two buffoonish presidents within two decades? I guess we’ll find out when “The End” arrives.
In the meantime, elected officials in my home state of Texas will reconvene sometime soon for a special session to settle some unresolved business, such as where transgendered people can go to the bathroom outside of their own homes. In Washington, Republican Party officials hope for passage of a bill to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act by July 4, our Independence Day. Because if there’s one time of the year you want to prevent people from going to the bathroom and then denying them healthcare, it’s when they’re getting drunk and setting off firecrackers.
It is sad that in a country that was starting to move forward, a racist steps in and throws everything back 200 years. Half of the people who voted for him don’t understand what has happened. “We want an end to Obamacare, but I am so glad we still have the Affordable Care Act” and “He would never have said those things if he knew he was being recorded”.
One of my friends used to call George W Bush the biggest comedian of our time because he ran the country like it was a joke. I wonder what she says now about this bigot. I’ll have to see if I can get hold of her again and ask her.
I think there are more important things to deal with than where transgendered people go to the toilet. That one is easy to resolve. It’s whichever sex they identify with. I have two particular trans friends, one becoming Jeremy, and one becoming Mel. They use the male and female toilets respectively. You wouldn’t expect to see someone with a dress walking in to the men’s toilets which is exactly what they are saying.
I do wonder how bigots and racists survive sometimes and how they can live with themselves. After all, you strip away the skin, and everyone looks the same.
I saw a video once of a huge x-ray screen and people were behind it kissing. You couldn’t see anything about them apart from their skeleton, so when they came round, that’s when you saw two whites, two women, two men, a coloured and a white, two transgendered and the like. If only everyone saw the world like that.
I have tagged you in a challenge. https://wordpress.com/post/forestwoodfolkart.wordpress.com/18159
No obligation to participate. I just wanted to highlight your blog to others.
Ah, so everyone’s a waaaaacist who had a problem with Obama, and Bush caused both the recession and 9/11. Got it. Please, more of your warmed-over leftist bullshit. Can never get enough of that.
You call it leftist bullshit, but I know it’s cold, hard reality. You right-winger extremists still haven’t figured out the difference and probably never will. No, George W. Bush didn’t cause 9/11, but his policies DID send the nation into its worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. My main gripe with Obama is that he did nothing to hold accountable those who were responsible. Shit like that just doesn’t happen on its own. Millions of people lost their jobs and homes; the big banks got bailed out; and no one went to jail. The facts are out there – if you look for them. But that would actually require some intellectual stamina, and it looks like you can’t stretch that far. Bush was one of the most incompetent presidents we’ve ever had. He actually made Ronald Reagan look decent.
Now we’re headed down the same path with Donald Trump. That trickle-down economics crap is the real bullshit. But you right-wingers keep falling for it. Somehow, you think if abortion is banned, gay marriage is outlawed and everybody owns a gun, it’s okay if the government fucks you over with their tax plans. Insanity is one thing; stupidity is another.