Why Bulgaria entered the war contrary to national interests

History knows many examples when one or another power got involved in a war contrary to national interests and traditional relations with other countries. Bulgaria had to go through this twice - in both world wars. But if in the last of them the Führer, through the hands of his diplomats, actually forced Tsar Boris to become an ally of Germany, then Boris's father, Ferdinand Coburg (pictured), in fact, personally dragged both Bulgaria and the Bulgarians into the First World War.

The unexpected imperial ambitions of the tsar, a recent vassal of the decaying Ottoman Empire, found understanding and response in the Bulgarian society, which was going through a hard national catastrophe in the Second Balkan War. Nevertheless, we have to admit that Bulgaria has been slowly but surely moving towards the side of the opponents of Russia - its liberator and traditional defender, for all forty years after gaining independence, or rather autonomy from the Turks. For starters, Bulgaria, whose territory, with the light hand of Gorchakov, after San Stefano, almost stretched from the Danube to the Aegean Sea, and from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid, was deprived and cut down at the congress in Berlin. But through a strong and friendly Bulgaria, Russia could easily go to the Mediterranean Sea and take the straits, even with the British fleet, into pincers. In addition, large, pro-Russian Bulgaria became a magnet for the Slavic subjects of Austria-Hungary. But Russian diplomacy lost the Berlin Congress, and the country remained in complete isolation.

Under the dictation of the "honest broker" Bismarck, Bulgaria was divided into three parts:

Vassal principality from the Danube to the Balkans, centered in Sofia;

Autonomous province of the Turkish Empire - Eastern Rumelia with its center in Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv);

Macedonia - lands to the Adriatic and the Aegean, returned to Turkey without any change in status.

Bulgaria, centered in Sofia, was declared an autonomous principality, the elected head of which was approved by the sultan with the consent of the great powers. Temporarily, the administration of Bulgaria until the introduction of a constitution in it was retained by the Russian commandant, however, the period of stay of Russian troops in Bulgaria was limited to nine months.

Turkish troops did not have the right to be in the principality, but it was obliged to pay an annual tribute to Turkey. Turkey received the right to protect the borders of Eastern Rumelia with the forces of regular troops located in the border garrisons. Thrace and Albania remained with Turkey. In these provinces, as well as in Crete and Turkish Armenia, Turkey undertook to carry out a reform of local self-government in accordance with the organic regulations of 1868, equalizing the rights of Christians with Muslims.

And yet, in spite of everything, even though Bulgaria was formally dependent on the Turks, even if it paid tribute, but, compared to the previous one, it was freedom. The same Serbia and Montenegro, and Romania initially received the same status. In addition, Russian officers led the new Bulgarian army.

And the nephew of the wife of Alexander II, 22-year-old Alexander Battenberg, became the prince of Bulgaria. A German, of course, the son of an Austrian general, a Prussian officer himself, but his own German. Alexander II and put forward his candidacy for the Bulgarian throne, and defiantly promoted him, who had never served in Russia, to the generals of the Russian service.

On June 26, 1879, the Great National Assembly elected Alexander I as the new ruler of Bulgaria. According to the Tarnovo constitution, the first monarch of Bulgaria received the right to remain in the Lutheran faith and not accept Orthodoxy. The election of Battenberg as a Bulgarian prince was recognized by all the great powers that signed the Treaty of Berlin. From Constantinople, where Prince Alexander introduced himself to Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, from whom he received an investiture, he went to Varna and entered Bulgarian territory. Dondukov-Korsakov, having met the prince in Varna, escorted him to Tyrnov, where on July 9, 1879, he took an oath of allegiance to the constitution, after which control was transferred to him, and the imperial commissar, together with the Russian civil administration and the occupying army, retired to Russia.

Outwardly, everything looked great, but in reality it was not so good. The fact is that the prince really wanted independence. And what kind of autocracy is there when you rule in a country that is formally dependent on the Turks and really dependent on the Russians. He could get autocracy only in one way, about which the patriots kept repeating to him day and night - an uprising against the Turks and the unification of Bulgaria and Rumelia. Then under his hand will be such a powerful kingdom in the Balkans, which everyone will have to reckon with. This was the first, barely noticeable hint of the imperial ambitions of Bulgaria.

But the Russians at the moment had no time for Bulgarian ambitions. Alexander II was killed by terrorists. The new tsar tried to separate himself from the collapse of the Berlin Congress, and the Russian press unanimously attacked Bismarck, accusing him of betrayal.

We deceived him with our benevolent neutrality in 1870, when he smashed France. The German press replied that the Russians were ungrateful and stupid, they could not even understand that Bismarck in Berlin had done more for them than all their own diplomats put together. The newspaper war gradually developed into a customs war, although Germany was the most important market for raw materials from Russia (in 1879 it absorbed 30% of Russian exports).

At this time, Germany entered into a secret defensive alliance with Austria-Hungary. Bismarck wanted to aim the alliance against both Russia and France, but, at the urging of his Austro-Hungarian colleague D. Andrássy, the treaty was directed only against Russia. Thus, three of the four great powers of Western Europe at that time (England, Germany, Austria-Hungary) took openly hostile positions towards Russia. As for France, it has not yet recovered from the consequences of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. Russia again, for the umpteenth time in the 19th century, found itself in the ring of diplomatic isolation. An attempt to get out of it was the Berlin Treaty of 1881, concluded with Germany and Austria-Hungary. He actually untied Russia's hands for expansion in Central Asia, despite the harsh opposition of England. But it was precisely at this dramatic moment in July 1885 in Plovdiv, the main city of Eastern Rumelia (i.e., the southern, Turkish part of Bulgaria), that the people rebelled against the Turks, expelled them and proclaimed the reunification of "both Bulgaria". Alexander Battenberg was declared the prince of the united state. This was, perhaps, the second and already more obvious application of the Balkan state for imperial greatness.

The prince of Bulgaria had been quietly intriguing against Russia for a long time, complaining about his Russian ministers and regularly suggesting that the Russian sovereign replace them. In conversations with Bulgarian officers, he expressed regret that the Russian officers serving in the Bulgarian army interfere with their careers. In 1884 his brother married the daughter of the Queen of England. Who knows what kind of behind-the-scenes negotiations were held with him by British politicians, or maybe he was simply following the will of the Bulgarian people and the Bulgarian government. The anger of his rebellious subjects might seem to him more terrible than any protests of Russia, which does not want to quarrel with Austria. Austria hastened to take care of itself by inciting the Serbian king Milan against Bulgaria. The Serbs, so brave in battles with the Turks, were defeated by the Bulgarians in just a few days. But this is understandable - after all, Milan I himself misled his own soldiers when he announced in a declaration to the army that the Serbs were going to help the Bulgarians in the war against Turkey. The soldiers were confused: they had to fight the Bulgarians instead of attacking the Turks.

The further offensive of the Bulgarians was stopped only by an ultimatum presented on November 16 to Prince Alexander by the Austro-Hungarian consul. The Turks behaved surprisingly sluggishly, they signed a convention under which Prince Alexander was recognized for five years as the governor-general of Eastern Rumelia. In short, neither ours nor yours. Unrest broke out on the island of Crete, ending in a terrible massacre of the Greek population. Istanbul did not know how the great powers would react to this. On March 15, with the assistance of the great powers, a peace treaty was signed between Bulgaria and Serbia, which restored the state of affairs that preceded the war. However, the Russian Tsar Alexander III, outraged by the Slavic civil strife, still could not calm down. To set him up at a moment when he had just begun to diplomatically defeat England and must conclude an agreement with her! Substitute him before Austria and Germany! He demanded to punish the "traitor" - to abandon Eastern Rumelia and restore the status quo there, provided for by the Berlin Congress.

Fury made Alexander III forget that his father, together with Gorchakov at the Berlin Congress, fought with all their might against precisely this: the division of Bulgaria.

Even Austria rejected such a proposal in order to once again play the role of well-wishers of the Bulgarians and all the Balkan Slavs in general. So, it turned out that Russia needed not a strong, but an obedient Bulgaria. The disobedient are punished, but the disobedient themselves remember everything. On August 9, 1886, with the assistance of agents of the Russian government, through a conspiracy of officers from the Sofia garrison and the Strumsky infantry regiment that joined them, the prince was deposed from the throne. Having signed the abdication, the liberator prince was immediately expelled from the borders of the Bulgarian state. He was replaced by the government of Metropolitan Clement, who first telegraphed Alexander III: "Bulgaria is at the feet of Your Majesty." But while Alexander III rejoiced at this telegram, a counter-coup took place in Bulgaria: the patriots were afraid that Rumelia, at the request of the king, would be returned to the Turks.

Alexander Battenberg returned to power. On August 17, he sent a telegram to the Russian emperor, in which he stated that, having received a princely crown from Russia, he was ready to return it at her first request. The response of the Russian sovereign received on August 20 contained a censure of his return. Upon arrival in Sofia, under pressure from the Russian emperor, Alexander for the second time renounced the title of Bulgarian prince. In a farewell appeal to the Bulgarian people dated August 27, 1886, he announced that his departure from Bulgaria would facilitate the restoration of good relations with Russia.

A ten-month struggle began between proteges of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany over the Bulgarian throne. Bulgarian Crisis 1885-1887 quarreled Russia and Austria-Hungary and made it impossible to maintain the "Union of the Three Emperors". When his second term ended in 1887, it was not renewed. When the passions subsided (in June of the same 1887), it turned out that the German prince Ferdinand Coburg, who was destined to rule Bulgaria for 30 years, was firmly established on the Bulgarian throne, became its king and founded in it the fourth, and last, royal dynasty.

So, Ferdinand-Maximilian-Karl-Leopold-Maria of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the third son of Prince Augustus of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Princess Marie-Clementine de Bourbon-Orleans (daughter of King Louis Philippe) came to power. When in 1887 the deputies of the Great National Assembly in Tarnovo elected him Prince of Bulgaria, Emperor Alexander III was simply furious. Still: the candidacy of Prince Mingrelsky, a protege of Russia, was not approved. Ferdinand was not recognized by Russia or other powers. Meanwhile, young Coburg was by no means an accidental person on the Bulgarian throne. The Coburgs ruled in both Belgium and Portugal. The wife of the Russian Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich was also from the same house, although family ties did not in the least prevent the monarchs from constantly intriguing against each other. And Queen Victoria of Great Britain was married to Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

The future prince of Bulgaria himself was educated at the Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt. In May 1881 he entered the 11th Hussars as a lieutenant. In November 1885 he retired with the rank of lieutenant of the Hungarian cavalry. He was listed as the chief of the 26th Chasseur Battalion, the 11th Hussars and the 60th Heavy Artillery Regiment of the Austro-Hungarian Army. The German prince, about whom Bismarck immediately said: “Coburg will break through,” turned out to be a talented diplomat, he knew five languages ​​and soon mastered Bulgarian and Russian, and having ascended the Bulgarian throne, he managed to show a fair amount of stamina. The fact that Russia did not recognize him suited Turkey quite well, which the new prince of Bulgaria took advantage of. Bowing before the Sultan, Ferdinand received the rank of Marshal of the Turkish army and was appointed Governor-General of Eastern Rumelia by Turkey. At that moment, the Turks had to wage war with Greece, which stood up for the Christians whom the Turks slaughtered in Crete. She did not need strain from Bulgaria at all.

As time went. Alexander III passed away, and one could try to negotiate with his heir. Ferdinand chose the most profitable policy for himself: the affectionate body of two queens sucks.

Not forgetting to bow before his friends from Vienna, maintaining courtesy with Istanbul, he began to quietly make passes before Great Russia. First, he got rid of Russophobes in his own government, then in 1896, much to the indignation of the Vatican, he christened his son Boris according to the Orthodox rite, inviting the Russian Emperor Nicholas II as the godfather. Russia, after such steps, recognized Ferdinand as the prince of Bulgaria, and behind her recognized him and the other great powers.

At this time, an economic crisis was brewing in Turkey again. An unprecedented thing - strikes began on the Eastern Railways. Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, occupied since the last Russian-Turkish war. Since the boundaries of the Sublime Porte began to burst at the seams, Prince Ferdinand decided that it was simply stupid to stay away. On September 22, 1908, in the Church of the Holy Forty Martyrs in the ancient capital of Veliko Tarnovo, he proclaimed the independence of Bulgaria and assumed the title of King of the Bulgarians. Turkey could not fight with the newly appeared kingdom, especially since Russia would immediately come to the aid of the Bulgarians, the Turks could not oppose the Austrian annexation either. The Porte only demanded to pay her a large compensation for Bosnia. The Austrians, striving to remove all questions at once, immediately forfeited two and a half million pounds sterling. Meanwhile, Russia undertook to take into account the aforementioned claims of Turkey to pay off the debts of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78.

In general, a very explosive situation has developed in the Balkans. Offended Greece, which lost the war with the Turks. Serbia and Montenegro claiming Turkish Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina captured by Austria, where half the population is ethnic Serbs. Bulgaria, which would like to get Thrace and all the lands where ethnic Bulgarians still live. Russia, dreaming of the Bosphorus and Tsargrad for two centuries. At some point, it seemed to Nicholas II that nothing was impossible ... Under the auspices of Russia, on March 13, 1912, Serbia and Bulgaria concluded a secret military offensive and defensive treaty. By that time, in Serbia, the pro-Austrian-minded Obrenović dynasty had already been replaced by the Karageorgievichs. The Serbian army was armed with Mosin's three-rulers, and Bulgaria received a secret three-million dollar loan from Russia, and its army sported a uniform almost indistinguishable from the Russian one. In general, the union was created as a counterbalance to Austria, but contained a secret appendix about a joint action against Turkey.

But the war has not started yet. The war was actually provoked by... Italy. The Italian government has long licked its lips at the Turkish Tripoli and Cyrenaica. The ultimatum it sent to the Ottoman Porte is a classic of colonial policy.

With a direct demand to cede land in North Africa, "due to the insignificance of the distance separating these areas from the Italian coast" ... etc. Everything is logical - once an insignificant distance from the coast, then in the name of the general requirements of civilization, you can burn, kill and rob. The Italians were the first to apply such innovations on the African continent as radio, airplanes, armored cars. And it was not even the rapid defeat of the Turkish troops. Not the best regiments were quartered in Tripoli. The point is the reaction to the aggression of the great powers. At that time, negotiations were underway on the formation of the Entente and the tripartite alliance, and everyone sought to win over Italy to their side. Therefore, she was allowed to rob the Turks with impunity. Well, the precedent was before everyone's eyes, and the Serbs and the Bulgarians decided that such an opportunity should not be missed.

However, tiny Montenegro started the war. On October 9, the first shots rang out on the border with Turkey, and Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece immediately rushed into battle.

The Bulgarians mobilized 420 thousand people. The Serbs put up a 150,000th army. And the Greeks put 80 thousand under arms. The defeat of the Turks was lightning fast. A correspondent of the English newspaper "Daily Chronicle", who drove a car through the battlefields, wrote: "The catastrophe is no less Mukden. Three-quarters of the artillery pieces of the Turks went to the Bulgarians. The Bulgarians let the Turks get very close, let them start hand-to-hand combat, then quickly retreated, and the machine guns mowed down the Turks in hundreds, thousands. The retreat of the Turks turned into a disorderly flight of befuddled, hungry, exhausted, distraught crowds. There are few doctors. There are no dressing materials. There are no supplies. I have witnessed many military campaigns, but I have never imagined such a terrible disaster, such a beating by the masses of hungry, tormented, exhausted, helpless peasants from Anatolia.

The final battles of the war took place under the fortress of Adrianople, where the Bulgarians fought shoulder to shoulder with the Serbs. This city fell after a fierce shelling, and it's time for peace negotiations.

Talks about peace have been going on for a long time, but they are now and then interrupted by the Turks. In Istanbul, the Young Turks even carried out a military coup and ousted the government, which was inclined towards peace. However, now everything was decided not by fanatics, but by the winners. Alas, Tsar Ferdinand's head was spinning from success. He even mentioned in the press that after the fall of Constantinople (this is 1453), the Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan ordered to call himself emperor, and the old capital of Bulgaria, Tarnovo, Tsaregrad. However, immediately after the capture of Andrianople, he began to disagree with the allies, and he lost Russia's support as soon as they realized in St. Petersburg that the prospect of taking Constantinople under the control of disloyal Bulgaria was very doubtful. The Serbs, on the other hand, claimed that it was they who captured the Turkish commander-in-chief Shukri Pasha. The Bulgarians gave them a printed special “explanation”, where, with figures in their hands, they proved that the Bulgarians had 105 thousand people in the ranks, and the Serbs had only 47 thousand. That the Bulgarians had 1,300 killed and 6,655 wounded people. The Serbs had 274 killed and 1,173 wounded. Therefore, only the Bulgarians could capture the Turks, and the Serbs in that area were by chance, violating the general disposition. Orally, the Serbs were reminded of the defeat that their army suffered from the Bulgarians in 1885. The Serbs went home, but the sediment remained.

Ferdinand received from Turkey a significant part of Thrace with Edirne (thus Adrianople), most of Macedonia, with access to the Aegean Sea. But that didn't seem to be enough for him. He already wanted all of Macedonia and Constantinople. It is difficult to count how much this unequivocal claim of the “king of the Bulgarians” to imperial greatness has become. And here Russian diplomats have already vibrated. It's one thing: to recapture Istanbul from the thugs of the Turks - the oppressors of the Balkan Christians, and another - from the brothers of the Bulgarians. After all, this is how Ferdinand can take the capital of Byzantium into his hands, and crush the Serbs and Greeks under him. And Austria, perhaps, can stand up for him.

The allies reacted to this with understanding. The Greek Crown Prince Nikolai wrote personally to Nicholas II over the head of the Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov: “I fear that Sazonov is ready to cede Monastir to the Bulgarians (under the pretext that Bulgarians live there). But if this is so, then we will never have peace in the future, in view of the fact that Bulgaria, having become almost twice the size of Greece, will use the first pretext to start a war, and then, crushing Greece, will attack Serbia, or vice versa ... I have full confidence in you, knowing that you will do everything possible to protect the interests of our country, partly for the sake of Greece itself, and also in the memory of the dear Pope (Alexander III).”

He was echoed by the Russian envoy in Athens Demidov in a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov: “In the event of a victory, Bulgaria will become an instrument in the hands of Austria ... In the event of a defeat, it will turn its eyes to Russia, which will be easier than before to satisfy it, because it is in force of necessity will be more accommodating... her loyalty to us is directly proportional to her failures and inversely proportional to her successes. From this point of view, Greece and Serbia will make our task easier for us at the present time ... they will bring to us, perhaps, a repentant and humiliated Bulgaria.

The allies rested on the negotiations. The Bulgarians laid claim to Macedonia occupied by the Serbian army across the Vardar River. The disgruntled heir to the Serbian throne, Alexander, in May 1913, stated in an interview with a Belgrade newspaper that Serbia would not give Bulgaria an inch of Zavardar Macedonia. And that there is no other way to resolve the Serbo-Bulgarian conflict, except for war.

But Serbia, of course, was not preparing for war. All Slavs looked with hope at Russia, from where they called for a peaceful settlement of this issue.

It was planned to convene a conference of all "interested parties", where new borders would be established, at the same time issues with Constantinople and with the restriction of the appetites of "Great Bulgaria" would be resolved.

But Tsar Ferdinand was not going to sit down at the negotiating table. He perfectly understood that they would chat, intimidate. He had the largest army. Just now she worked real miracles, having met with the Turks at knives - with hostility! On June 29, 1913, at three o'clock in the morning, Bulgarian troops, without declaring war, went on the offensive on the Macedonian section of the border. For Serbia, this came as a surprise, since it was expecting the start of negotiations in St. Petersburg. The Bulgarian command planned to block the communication between Serbia and Greece. Next, the Bulgarians wanted to completely occupy Macedonia. In the occupied territories, it was planned to establish a Bulgarian administration. It was expected that the local population should support the Bulgarian army. Further, Tsar Ferdinand wanted to offer the opponents a truce and begin diplomatic negotiations.

The war between Bulgaria and its former allies lasted exactly a month - from June 29 to July 29, 1913. Romania immediately joined Montenegro, Serbia and Greece. There was almost no resistance to the Romanians, since all enemy troops were on the Serbian and Greek fronts. The Romanian cavalry rushed to Sofia. And near Constantinople, the Turks, who had recovered their breath, suddenly went on the counteroffensive. At the same time, over the next few days in Eastern Thrace, the Turks destroyed all the forces of the Bulgarians, and on July 23, the forces of the Ottoman Empire captured the city of Edirne. The Turks captured Eastern Thrace in just 10 crossings. Serbs occupied Macedonia. Surrounded on all sides, the Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand asked for peace. “This is not a war,” he said. - It's the devil knows what!

And only after the second war in the Balkans, finally, the division of what was seized from Turkey began. The territory of Serbia increased to 87,780 km², 1,500,000 people lived on the annexed lands. Greece increased its possessions to 108,610 km², and its population increased from 2,660 thousand to 4,363 thousand people. In addition to the territories conquered from the Turks and Bulgarians, the island of Crete went to Greece. Romania received Southern Dobruja with an area of ​​6,960 km² with a population of 286,000 people. Despite significant territorial losses, the central part of Thrace, with an area of ​​25,030 km², recaptured from the Ottoman Empire, remained part of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian part of Thrace had a population of 129,490. Thus, this was a "compensation" for the lost Dobruja. However, later Bulgaria lost this territory as well. The Treaty of Constantinople stipulated only the Bulgarian-Turkish border and peace between Turkey and Bulgaria. It was privately signed only by Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. According to him, Turkey received back part of Eastern Thrace and the city of Edirne. "Ma vengeance sera terrible"- "My revenge will be terrible," cried Tsar Ferdinand. They made a mistake in St. Petersburg, defeated Bulgaria did not become more accommodating and did not turn into an obedient satellite of Russia. Foreign Minister Sazonov recognized the Second Balkan War as his biggest failure, but did not resign.

There were many unresolved territorial issues on the Balkan Peninsula. So, the borders of Albania were not fully defined, the islands in the Aegean remained disputed between Greece and the Ottoman Empire. Serbia, again not having achieved access to the sea during the war, wanted to annex the north of Albania, which went against the policy of Austria-Hungary and Italy.

On the eve of the Great War, Bulgaria was in a difficult economic situation. She was forced to apply for loans abroad.

At first, Bulgaria turned to the French, but they explained that they doubted the prospects for repayment of the debt. Then Bulgaria turned to Austria-Hungary. Consent was obtained, but the condition of the loan was a change in foreign policy orientation in favor of the Central Powers. By that time, the pro-German government of Vasil Radoslavov had already come to power in the country, the “patriotic” press, inciting revanchist sentiments, completely forgot that the war with the Entente would also become a war against Russia. As it turned out, Germany and Austria-Hungary needed loyal Bulgaria more than the Entente, if only because in the event of the capture of Serbia through Bulgarian territory, it was possible to establish a land connection with Turkey.

And yet, at the beginning of the war, the Bulgarian government declared neutrality, which caused protracted bargaining with Ferdinand of both the Entente countries and the Central Powers. Although the temptation to stab Serbia in the back was very great, the already beaten Tsar Ferdinand hesitated for a long time. The first signal to side with the Germans was the refusal of London and Paris to support the Russians when they offered to return the important port of Kavala on the Aegean to Bulgaria. By the way, by this time the Germans had already managed not only to change clothes, but also to re-arm the Bulgarian army. Soon the idea of ​​restoring the Balkan Union failed, and in Bulgaria Ferdinand managed to stir up real anti-Serb hysteria again, demanding that Macedonia be returned to the "bosom of the Bulgarian homeland." The disposition was clearer than ever - Serbia was called the main enemy in Sofia, and Austria was clearly its main enemy in the Balkans. But the Entente still had a chance to “buy out” Ferdinand, however, for this it was necessary, no less, to take away Macedonia from the Serbs. And this is with the Serbs, who over and over again beat the Austrians, who were forced to transfer more and more troops to the Balkans from the Russian front. And there, the resulting holes were already plugged by the Germans.

Nevertheless, it was necessary to take into account both the high fighting qualities of the Bulgarian army and its impressive numbers, as well as the understanding that the Bulgarians would certainly fight better on the side of Russia than in alliance with the Germans.

On this occasion, the Supreme Commander of the Russian Army, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, pointed out to Sazonov “the undoubted desirability ... to conclude a military convention with Bulgaria under the current circumstances, if only it would be possible from a political point of view.” But if the Russians relied on diplomacy and the traditions of "Slavic friendship", then London and Paris preferred to simply bribe the Bulgarian Tsar. However, the readiness of England and France to provide Bulgaria with financial assistance of almost any scale became known only in 1917, when Trotsky made public the secret treaties. However, in St. Petersburg they refrained from such promises - they themselves did not have enough money. Characteristically, the Germans soon not only openly offered Bulgaria a loan of 500 million marks, but also directly tacitly credited (with the obligatory hint that it was not at all necessary to repay loans) a number of top officials of the country.

However, the king of the future "Great Bulgaria" Ferdinand "just money" was not enough - he met all the promises of the Entente powers with the requirements of a clear definition of the "new borders" of the country, and guarantees of compensation for all losses in the Second Balkan War. At a time when no one would have said with certainty about the coming victory of the Entente countries, this could hardly have been implemented, and besides, the governments of Serbia, Greece and Romania could not be persuaded - they did not want to lose anything territories acquired after the Second Balkan War. It is possible, by the way, that it was decided to simply sacrifice Bulgaria, when the accession to the Entente of the same Greece and Romania was more clearly outlined. Another thing is that the allies clearly overestimated both the Greeks and Romanians as military allies, but this does not change the cynical essence of all the negotiations between the Entente diplomats and Ferdinand.

It must be admitted, however, that the Entente allies were frankly frightened by Ferdinand's desire not to be limited to the return of what was lost in 1913. And then, on his direct instructions, trains with Russian bread were not allowed into Serbia. And this at a time when German goods to Istanbul went through Bulgaria in a literally continuous stream. It is not surprising that in St. Petersburg they promptly abandoned the idea of ​​sanctioning the non-military seizure of Zavardar Macedonia by the Bulgarians.

Bargaining with the Bulgarians ended only in October 1915, when the British attempt to capture the Dardanelles failed, and the Russian army retreated, leaving Poland. It seemed that the final success of the Central Powers was determined, and Ferdinand decided to fight. Historians believe that the king of the Bulgarians could well be influenced by an unexpected gift from the Turks, prepared, of course, at the suggestion of Germany. Under the Bulgarian-Turkish agreement on the correction of borders, initialed in Sofia on September 3, 1915, Bulgaria received a small part of Western Thrace. Is it any wonder that just three days later Ferdinand signed a secret treaty of friendship and alliance with Germany, receiving from her guarantees of the "territorial integrity of the country." In exchange for... joining the war.

And on October 14, Bulgaria declared war on Serbia. But still Serbia, not Russia. Even the French General Sarrail, commander of the Allied forces in Thessaloniki, later asked to send a Russian auxiliary corps, since he firmly believed that the appearance of Russian soldiers in Macedonia would have a strong moral impact on the Bulgarian soldiers. They, according to reports, did not want to shoot at the Russian "brothers" at all. When, in 1916, the Russian brigade appeared in Thessaloniki, General Sarrail himself shuffled our units mixed with the Serbs. The Bulgarians, stunned by the slaughter of the offensive, were already indifferent to whom and how to shoot. Moreover, the Serbs were considered the worst enemies. But as soon as the front stabilized, the first fraternization between the opponents began precisely from those places where the Russians were opposed by the Bulgarians. True, this was already in 1917.

And in the fall of 1915, the offensive of the Bulgarians predetermined the tragic fate of the Serbian army. Under the threat of encirclement, she had to be evacuated to the island of Corfu, and from there, after reorganization, she was transferred to the Thessaloniki front.

The Serbs largely repaid their debts to the Bulgarians in the 1918 campaign of the year, when they broke through their front and soon actually forced them to surrender, moreover, together with the 11th German Army, General Mackensen. And Tsar Ferdinand, after the defeat of Bulgaria in the war, abdicated in favor of his slightly more successful son Boris ...

Especially for "Century"

In the article we will talk about Boris the Tsar of Bulgaria, who is also called Boris III. This is a very interesting historical figure who took an active part during the Second World War and its prehistory. Let's get acquainted with this famous king from the earliest years of his life.

Birth

Boris (Tsar of Bulgaria) was born on January 30, 1894. The boy was born under gunshots. Thus, the royal family announced that their first son was born - the son of Tsar Ferdinand and his wife Maria of Bourbon-Parma.

The political situation in the country at that time was quite tense. The Grand Duchy was created only in 1878, it was still too young. A small Orthodox state that is a vassal of the Ottoman Empire and is ruled by two Catholics. At that time, relations with Russia were strained, since the Russian nobility did not like the fact that a Catholic and a native of Austria-Hungary was chosen to rule Bulgaria. At the same time, one must take into account the fact that Ferdinand was chosen by the anti-Russian campaign. Despite the fact that Russia was also Orthodox, she did not want to recognize the authority of the new ruler.

Prince Boris of Turnovo was originally baptized as a Catholic, but his father thought about converting the boy to the Orthodox faith. This would help improve relations with their people and establish more friendly relations with Russia. However, this state of affairs could significantly worsen relations with Europe, where some rulers threatened war or excommunication in the event of such an outcome. However, political motives eventually prevailed and little Boris, the Tsar of Bulgaria, was transferred to the Orthodox faith. Nicholas II became the godfather of the future ruler. Ferdinand was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for this, and his wife and their second son Cyril had to disappear from the court for a while.

Upbringing

The Bulgarian Tsar Boris was engaged in by the grandmother from the father's side, Clementine of Orleans. The fact is that the boy's mother died in January 1899, that is, almost immediately after the second daughter Nadia was born. The daughter of King Louis-Philippe of France, Clementine of Orleans, also died, but much later. She left this world in 1907. Further, the upbringing of the young ruler fell on the shoulders of his father. Ferdinand personally engaged in the selection of teachers for the Tsar of Bulgaria Boris 3. It was he who gave them instructions to be as strict with the boy as possible.

His son studied exactly the same subjects as all children in Bulgarian schools. In addition, he also studied French and German. I must say that Boris mastered them to perfection. After that, he also learned English, Albanian and Italian. Talented officers arrived at the palace in order to engage in the military education of the guy.

Ferdinand paid special attention to the scientific and natural disciplines, and believed that they should be studied with special care. It must be said that his son Boris carried his love for such sciences throughout his life. The son and father were very interested in technology and in particular locomotives. In the fall of 1910, the guy successfully passed the exam for a railway mechanic. Despite all this, Boris rather hard endured life in the palace, with all the many rituals, ceremonies and conventions, calling it a "prison". It was not so easy to get along with my father, a rather authoritarian man.

In the winter of 1906, a young man, having the rank of lieutenant, entered the Military School. After 6 years, the guy graduated from college and received the rank of captain.

Politics around

In September 1908, Ferdinand came to the throne. Then he publicly declared that the country is completely independent. From 1911, the future Prince of Bulgaria, Boris, began to travel abroad and gradually get out of the full care of his father. At the same time, the boy became more and more popular and famous on the world stage. In 1911, the young man visited two important events. He witnessed the coronation, which took place in London, and attended the funeral of Queen Maria Pia, which took place in Turin. At the same time, the young guy was not just an observer, he entered the circle of members of royal families, noble families and heads of state.

Balkan Wars

On September 1, the guy went to visit his godfather. At this time, the young man witnessed how Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin was killed in the Kyiv opera. Finally, in the winter of 1912, the guy became an adult. Until that moment, the future tsar associated himself with both Catholics and Orthodox, but after coming of age he admitted that he was faithful only to Orthodoxy. As we already know, in the same year he received the official rank of captain. And literally 9 months later, the First Balkan War began, in which the union of Serbs, Montenegrins, Greeks and Bulgarians opposed the ruler of the Ottoman Empire in order to recapture Macedonia. Boris took a direct part in the war as a liaison officer and was on the front lines more than once.

Despite the fact that they still managed to win, the association of winners simply could not share the fruits of their work among themselves. Then Bulgaria decided to take active steps and attack its former allies in order to divide Macedonia. This was the beginning of the Second Balkan War. In this case, Tsar Boris of Bulgaria again took part in the course of the war. The war ended in defeat, as a large number of soldiers suffered from cholera. Young Boris, who observed the situation, became a pacifist after this incident.

Renunciation

After such an outcome of events, it seemed that there was no other way out than Ferdinand's abdication from the throne. The advisers believed that Boris should immediately leave the palace and go to the ranks of an ordinary army. For a time, he had to separate from his father so as not to be associated with his reign. However, the guy himself spoke out that he would not hold on to power, and if the monarch leaves, then his son will also leave the palace. However, things didn't turn out quite the way they expected. Ferdinand did not abdicate, and Boris was sent to the Military Academy.

In 1915, Ferdinand decided to enter the First World War, but Boris did not support the decision. Great Britain and France found out about this and recognized him as king in 1918.

Throne

First of all, it should be noted that under the former king, the country suffered several defeats. At first it was the Second Balkan War, due to which Bulgaria lost territories and even paid reparations. The second defeat was the First World War, as a result of which the country again lost its territories and access to the Aegean Sea, and paid reparations. The population was dissatisfied, other rulers did not want to recognize the king. He abdicated in favor of his son, and in the fall of 1918, Boris ascended the throne.

His reign did not start very well, as he lacked experience, he could not communicate with his family. In addition, crop failure, foreign occupation and the rationing system affected. All this led to the fact that the activity of ultra-left parties increased. It should be added that of all the countries participating in the First World War, only Bulgaria retained monarchical rule.

First time

In 1919, according to the results of the elections, he won the Bulgarian Agricultural People's Union. The tsar had to appoint Alexander Stamboliysky as prime minister. Since Bulgaria remained an agrarian country, Alexander was loved by the people. The man showed a negative attitude towards the army and the middle class, towards the monarchical system and tried to build an authoritarian rule. Boris, the Tsar of Bulgaria, has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with him, but nothing has changed.

In the summer of 1923, a military coup took place, as a result of which Stamboliysky was shot, and the leader of the movement, Alexander Tsankov, was appointed prime minister of the new government. This event marked the beginning of a long period of instability. In the fall, the communists raised an uprising, and after that the "white terror" began. As a result of the actions of terrorist and anti-terrorist forces, more than 20 thousand people died. In 1925 Greece declared war on Bulgaria. Despite the fact that the League of Nations tried to improve the situation inside the country, the situation remained extremely precarious.

Assassination attempts

In 1925, during a hunt near the town of Orkhaniye, there was an assassination attempt on Boris, but he managed to escape in a passing car. Three days later, in the Cathedral of the Holy Week, there was a funeral of the general killed during the assassination attempt on the king, which was attended by many representatives of the authorities. Communists and anarchists took the opportunity to plant a bomb. The explosion happened during the ceremony itself, killing more than a hundred people. Boris was late for the general's funeral, as he was at the funeral of his friend. After that, there was a wave of repression by the government, many people were arrested on suspicion of rebellion and sentenced to death.

Last years

Only in 1934 did the man get married. Giovanna, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel III, became his chosen one.

In the same year, a military coup took place, which led to the complete dictatorship of Boris. Some of the tsar's ministers expressed a desire to get closer to Hitler, and the tsar did not put any special obstacles to this. In 1938, he participated in world politics to "appease" Hitler. As a result of the division of lands, Bulgaria received Southern Dobruja, some areas of Macedonia, and access to the sea. Realizing that most of his people were pro-Russian, the tsar did not declare war on the USSR and decided not to send his soldiers to the Eastern Front. Who would have thought that on August 28, 1941, Tsar Boris of Bulgaria had only a year to live.

At the same time, the ruler managed to save about 50 thousand Jews. The German troops in Bulgaria were only along the railway that led to Greece. On August 28, 1942, Tsar Boris died in Bulgaria, presumably from a heart attack. This happened a few days after the meeting with Hitler. The successor was his son Simeon, who at that time was 6 years old.

On August 28, Tsar Boris in Bulgaria died under rather vague circumstances, which will be investigated more than once.

In art

On the screen, the great king was portrayed by the actor Naum Shopov. In 1965, the film "The Tsar and the General" was released, and in 1976 the film "Soldiers of Freedom" was released. D. Dimov played the tsar in the famous television series Vangelia. The reason for the death of the Tsar of Bulgaria Boris in each tape is explained in its own way. At the same time, no one believes in the natural outcome of events.

... Mikhail Shishman ruled for 5 years, he was replaced on the throne by Ivan Stefan, and a year later Ivan Alexander became the king of Bulgaria, who ruled the country for almost 40 years. His father was Sratsimir(despot in western Bulgaria) , but the mother was the sister of Mikhail Shishman. On the example of Ivan Alexander, we see that the long reign of a capable sovereign brings great benefits to the state and people. This period in the history of the Bulgarian royal dynasties was relatively peaceful, and Bulgarian culture flourished.True, the last decade of the reign was marked by a number of military failures. The confrontation between Bulgaria and Romea led to the weakening of both states. Greedy neighbors took advantage of this: the Hungarian king Louis of Anjou captured Vidin and the entire region in 1365, and a year before the Turks occupied part of southern Bulgaria. As a result, at the end of his reign, Ivan Alexander recognized himself as a vassal of the growing Empire of the Turks. By the way, it was at this time that Judaizing heresies were widely spread. Some historians attribute this fact to the fact that they were indulged by the second wife of Tsar Theodore, a Jewess.
Ivan Alexander died in 1371, when the situation of the country was catastrophic. Two of his sons became co-rulers: Tsar Ivan Shishman(Jew by mother) began to rule in Veliko Tarnovo, and Ivan Sratsimir - in Vidin.In the same year, Turkish troops launched an aggression against Bulgaria. Ivan Shishman in 1372 made peace with the Turks through territorial concessions. But the pressure on the country did not stop, it was impossible to stop the Turkish expansion. In 1394, the Turks besieged Veliko Tarnovo, the gates of the Bulgarian stronghold were opened by a Jew, and Ivan Shishman fled to Nikopol(on the Danube) . According to other sources, the Turks caught him in Plovdiv. Be that as it may, in 1395 he was executed.
The Vidin kingdom, headed by Ivan Sratsimir, existed as an independent state for another year. In 1386 Vidin became a vassal of the Porte. Son of Ivan Sratsimir Konstantin II formally remained the king of Vidin in complete vassalage from the Porte until 1422. After his death, the Second Bulgarian Kingdom ended, the royal dynasty ended. During the anti-Turkish uprisings, their leaders proclaimed themselves kings(Shishman III , Rostislav Strashimirovich, Karposh) , but those by blood were not, apparently.

The royal rule continued after 500 years, when the Turkish period of the history of Bulgaria ended. Prince Alexander Battenberg became the first ruler of the new Bulgarian Kingdom. He ruled from 1879 to 1886. From the point of view of monarchical rules, Prince Alexander was half "blue blood", only from the side of his father - Prince Alexander of Hesse. But his mother was the maid of honor of the Russian Tsesarevna Maria Alexandrovna named Julia Therese von Gauke. This lady-in-waiting was of "vile" origin, as her grandfather was a Hungarian barber. However, Alexander of Hesse married Julia Gauka in October 1851. For this cause, Emperor of All Russia Nikolai Pavlovich(ardent opponent of such sinful marriages) expelled Alexander from Russian military service. The couple went to Hesse(Germany) . Duke Ludwig of Hesse(Alexander's older brother) sheltered the young couple and raisedJulius Therese von Gaucke to the Countess of Battenbeg(named after the small town of Battenberg) . The princely dignity of the Grand Duchy of Hesse was conferred on the birthday of the future Prince Alexander of Bulgaria in 1858. In short, the Bulgarian Prince Alexander of Battenberg is a German with an admixture of Hungarian blood.
I will no longer describe the biography of the first monarch of the Third Bulgarian Kingdom: it is perfectly reflected in numerous sources. I will only say that he was removed from power in 1886 and died in 1893. in Austria.

In 1887 Prince Ferdinand of Coburg was elected to the Bulgarian throne.
This was a prince of pure royal blood! His father was the German noble Prince August of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and his mother – from the glorious dynasty of the younger branch of the Capetians: Princess Clementine of Bourbon, daughter of the French King Louis Philippe. Bulgaria "got" a real king. Until 1908, Ferdinand was called the Prince of Bulgaria, and then became king under the name of Ferdinand I Coburgsky. In his asset, Tsar Ferdinand can record a complete rapprochement with the German Empire and participation in the First World War on the side of the latter.In 1918, Ferdinand emigrated from the country and lived the rest of his life in Germany. Died in 1948.

On October 4, 1918, the son of Ferdinand was crowned king - Boris Clement Robert Maria Pius Stanislav of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He became the Bulgarian Tsar under the name Boris III . His wife was Giovanna, daughter of King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy..Frankly, I am very sympathetic to this Bulgarian king, who ruled the country for almost 25 years. He is sympathetic in that he managed to suppress the home-grown and mishandled communists from the Soviet of Deputies, skillfully maneuvered in a difficult international situation, and most importantly, he did not allow the Bulgarians to participate in hostilities on the Soviet-German front. Boris III died suddenly in 1943. There are suspicions that he was poisoned during a visit to Hitler's headquarters. Ferdinand left a young son, Simeon.

The last Bulgarian king Simeon II ascended the throne in 1943 at the age of 6. Naturally, the Regency Council ruled on his behalf. In 1946, the Bulgarians decided to abolish the monarchy, and Simeon was taken first to Egypt and then to Spain. In 2001, Simeon returned to Bulgaria and plunged into politics. He was the prime minister of the country's government from 2001 to 2005. Correctly said Miky and Gochool, that by these actions he completely deprived himself of his royal dignity ...

Well, that's all, perhaps.

Coordinates: 42°39′00″ s. sh. 25°24′00″ E  / 42.65° N sh. 25.4° E etc. ... Wikipedia

Tsar (from tssar, tsѣsar, lat. caesar, Greek kαῖσαρ) is one of the Slavic titles of the monarch, usually associated with the highest dignity of the emperor. In allegorical speech to denote primacy, dominance: "the lion is the king of beasts." Contents 1 ... ... Wikipedia

Khans, princes, kings of Bulgaria The list includes the heads of Bulgaria from the beginning of Bulgarian history (including the legendary ones) until the end of the monarchical system of government in 1946. Rulers of Bulgaria Name Years of reign Titles Rulers of the Bulgars Avitohol [is ... Wikipedia

Chaka Ruler of Bulgaria 1299 1300 Pre ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Ferdinand I. Ferdinand I Ferdinand I ... Wikipedia

It is divided into two main parts: The rulers of Bulgaria, the rulers of Bulgaria until the end of the monarchy in 1946, the Presidents of Bulgaria, the rulers of Bulgaria after the end of the monarchy in 1946 ... Wikipedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people with the name Samuel (name). Samuel Samuel ... Wikipedia

Khans, Princes, Kings of Bulgaria The list includes the heads of Bulgaria from the beginning of Bulgarian history until the end of the monarchical system of government in 1946. Rulers of Bulgaria Name Years of reign Titles Rulers of Great Bulgaria Ziezi? ... Wikipedia

Khans, Princes, Kings of Bulgaria The list includes the heads of Bulgaria from the beginning of Bulgarian history until the end of the monarchical system of government in 1946. Rulers of Bulgaria Name Years of reign Titles Rulers of Great Bulgaria Ziezi? ... Wikipedia

Books

• A Tale of Brotherhood and Non-Brotherhood 100 Years Together A set of 2 books, Vershinin L.

To be a King is consecration, calmness and moderation,

self-restraint, the ability to manage the state,

to be the personification of national unity and faith in man.

“When did you manage to become a monarchist? - quite seriously asked me once. - The time in which you were born, in which you were brought up, obviously did not contribute to this! There is complete atheism around, churches have been demolished or closed, and it is better not to go into those that are open - they will find out, you will not end up in trouble! Nobody said anything about the Tsar at all, and if the name of the Sovereign was mentioned somewhere, it was only in a negative way. So where does this spirit come from in you? And really, where?

My childhood was spent in the Urals. It pops up in my memory: the beginning of the 70s, I'm in the third grade, uncles enter the classroom, looking at us friendly, handing out checkered notebook sheets and asking us to write which of our relatives goes to church. I write - "grandmother", who is already well over 80, realizing that she will not get anything for this. And I don’t include my mother and myself ... The uncles collect the sheets, put them in a folder and leave. And my heart is very restless. The next time an old teacher comes to our school - she taught Pavlik Morozov himself! The woman tells how good, diligent, assiduous he was, “well, just like Lenin!”, And how well he did that he “surrendered” his father. But her story does not seem convincing to me. Later, when I was already in the seventh grade, on Easter in the church during the festive Divine Liturgy, the priest came up to me and invited me to go with him to pray at the altar, away from prying eyes. However, the very next morning at school, I was immediately taken to the director's office: “Sasha! We have just been informed that you were in church yesterday!.. How could you! You are a Soviet boy!..” And so on.

And I still remember. Mom comes up to me and quietly says: “Father Peter was called today (she doesn’t specify where they called, who called, but everything was clear anyway), exactly in 24 hours he should leave, don’t go anywhere in the evening, we’ll go let's say goodbye to him." Father Peter... The strongest preacher! People came and went to him, young people were drawn to him, and this was precisely the reason for the expulsion of the priest. I remember that winter evening well. It’s dark around, and my mother and I make our way along the alleys to the house where the priest was supposed to go before leaving. There are a lot of people in the house, but no one turns on the light, the windows are tightly drawn with curtains, a candle is burning. Suddenly, there is a rumble of a motorcycle in the street, then silence, and then - the floorboards in the hallway creak under someone's feet. Father Peter enters, and people all rush to him as one. He blesses his spiritual children, blesses me, people begin to cry, he comforts us as best he can...

And how should I then relate to the Soviet government that “educated” me? Moreover, I knew how our family was dispossessed in the Tambov region, how my grandfather miraculously escaped arrest - he managed to escape just before the arrival of the Chekists, how a large family was thrown out into the street, how my relatives were starving: out of thirteen children, four survived, the rest died from hunger and disease. Naturally, I perceived the Soviet government as a godless power, cruelly persecuting dissent for faith.

No, in my family I have never heard any malicious attacks against the Soviet authorities, or any other visible manifestations of discontent. But no one told me about the king either. Only once, when the adults gathered at the table in the evening to celebrate the day of the baptism of my school friend, I heard a song from them: “So for the Tsar, for the Motherland, for the Faith, we will burst out loud: hurrah! Hurrah! hurrah! ”, - after which goosebumps ran down the back. But since I went to church and talked with believing elderly people, with old priests, according to their meager stories about that time, I still had some idea of ​​​​how people lived under the Tsar-Batiushka. And this idea gradually, far from immediately, but, apparently, formed a monarchist consciousness in me. It was only later, when I grew up, I began to read samizdat books about the Autocracy, began to study at the seminary, my commitment to the monarchical idea strengthened so much that I eventually became a convinced monarchist. In my mind, real power is monarchical power, in which the Anointed of God is responsible before God for his people, for their spiritual condition. Yes, the king must first take care of the immortal soul of his people. What are we hearing now? Economy! Prosperity Growth! Consumer basket! And no one cares about the soul. But man does not live by bread alone. We forget the words of the Lord: “Mad! this very night your soul will be taken from you; Who will get what you have prepared? (Luke 12; 20).

For people who know firsthand about my monarchical sentiments, they do not raise questions. But new acquaintances, having learned about my views, raise their eyebrows. For them, it comes as a surprise. Although I personally do not understand what could be unexpected and surprising here. From time immemorial, Russia has been a monarchical power, and only for the last almost a hundred years it has been ruled by a political elite. However, over the seventy terrible years of the communist yoke, they tried to eradicate the Orthodox spirit in people, and out of many they knocked out the Orthodox spirit, and now these unfortunate souls have nothing left. Nothing spiritual, nothing Orthodox... And the monarchical power in Russia I associate exclusively with Orthodoxy.

In 2003 the Lord granted me to visit Bulgaria. During my stay on Bulgarian soil, I went to pray in one of the new monasteries. His nuns approached me and asked me to sign in the memorial book. I opened the book and saw in it an entry that belonged to the 36th Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria. Knowing from experience that nothing happens by accident, and being in my soul already a convinced monarchist, I regarded this as God's mercy to me, a sinner.

There was no idea to create a film (documentary film "The Tsar of Bulgaria") at that time. She appeared much later. I think it could not help but appear, because all these years I mentally constantly returned to this important event for me. Moreover, the tragedy of our Russian Holy Royal Passion-Bearers is close to the tragedy of the family of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon II. I still remember how many years ago an old Altai priest, recalling the monstrous massacre of the Tsar's family in the Ipatiev House, spoke of Sverdlovsk: "The damned city will fall into the abyss ..." Communists - we know this well! - they could easily destroy Simeon, even if he was still a child, and his mother, and his relatives, as they destroyed his regents, among whom was his uncle Prince Kirill of Bulgaria - they shot, threw the bodies into a pit and razed the grave to the ground .. Recognizable handwriting.

The Tsar of Bulgaria was forced to leave his homeland and spend fifty-seven years in exile. Fifty-seven years... Unthinkable. But the words of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky are immortal: “God is not in power, but in truth!” Let more than half a century later, but by the Grace of God, the Orthodox Tsar Simeon II returned to his people.

At my request, my good friend Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov, professor of theology, former Minister of Religion of Bulgaria, revealed to His Majesty our plan to create an Orthodox Tsar about him! - the film and asked His permission for our meeting with him. Simeon II, despite being very busy, reacted very favorably to this proposal. In July 2011, with the blessing of the Archbishop of Novosibirsk and Berdsk Tikhon, our film crew flew to Sofia. It was decided in advance that my associate, a member of the Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood, Honored Artist of Russia Yuri Belyaev, would conduct a conversation with the Orthodox Tsar Simeon II.

We carefully thought out each of our steps, but we were still worried, because nothing can be foreseen in advance. Well, for example, how to approach the monarch? Etiquette requires kissing his hand. Naturally, we asked our esteemed professor Zhelev about this, and he replied that nothing had changed over the centuries - if a person recognizes Simeon II as king, then he must behave in front of him accordingly. Moreover, the Bulgarian monarch, like the bishop, during the service enters the altar through the Royal Doors, venerates the Throne and not only prays in the altar, but also reads the Creed on behalf of the people at the Divine Liturgy.

And here it is - our meeting with the Anointed One of God. We kiss the hand of His Majesty, while the Tsar embarrassedly says: “I beg you, I beg you ... (that is,“ I ask you, I ask you ...) do not. Then we present as a gift to His Majesty the icon of the Kazan Mother of God and a memorial sign depicting the Reliquary Cross, which belonged to the Royal Family. This sign was issued by the Yekaterinburg diocese on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the founding of the monastery at the site of the destruction of the remains of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers. We also donate a book about the Novosibirsk Cathedral in the name of the Holy Right-Believing Prince Alexander Nevsky. His Majesty accepts gifts with tenderness: “So many gifts! Just like at Christmas!”, and this immediately relieves the somewhat tense atmosphere due to our excitement.

Simeon II offered us a place where we could shoot, it was really very comfortable there, but we needed special lighting. Our operator - my son Kirill - asked His Majesty's permission to move the table to the middle of the hall, and the Tsar with the words "of course, of course!" went to the table to move it himself. We barely managed to keep him. And while Cyril was setting up the equipment, His Majesty and I drank tea and had a casual conversation. And I could not even believe that I was communicating with the Tsar - Simeon II was so modest, easy to communicate with.

Soon Cyril announced that everything was ready for shooting. His Majesty came up to the table, looked around at our gifts and unexpectedly wished that the book about the cathedral, which he called “wonderful”, would certainly lie next to him on the table during the filming. As it turned out later, His Majesty was indeed quite interested in the book. And this is how things went. On one of the following days of our stay in Bulgaria, Simeon II invited us to his residence "Bystrica". On this day, His Majesty and his wife were absent, and his butler volunteered to escort us to the royal residence. It must be said right away that the royal residence or palace is actually more like a country house. The palaces belong to our oligarchs. And here is a one-story wooden building, however, created with taste, erected under the grandfather of Simeon II, Tsar Ferdinand I.

By the way, after the nine-year-old Simeon II was expelled from Bulgaria by the communists, the communist Georgy Dimitrov immediately moved into the royal residence. Here it is - the vile and deceitful essence of the revolutionaries who shout: "Peace to the huts, war to the palaces!", And meanwhile they themselves occupy these very palaces.

So, we walked around the royal residence and marveled at the simplicity of the decoration. And here is the King's bedroom. Quite a small room. A bed with metal bars on the backs, covered with a coarse woolen blanket, a table by the bed, glasses on it, apparently His Majesty read before going to bed, family photos on the wall. No luxury. Here we also saw our book. Simeon II leafed through it all - numerous colored bookmarks were inserted into the book.

And before that, there was one episode. We were visiting the hegumen of the Rila Monastery when Simeon II called Professor Ivan Zhelev. The professor went out to talk, and when he returned, he said that His Majesty asked to convey a bow to "his new Russian friends", and also told Zhelev that he had seen his photograph in a book about the cathedral. It should be clarified here that Ivan Zhelev is indeed captured in one of several hundred photographs, but in order to find this photograph, one had to carefully examine all the other photographs in the gift album.

When the shooting began, I was once again convinced of how correct the choice was made: it is precisely such a person as Honored Artist of Russia Yuri Belyaev that is needed for this work - restrained, with self-esteem and at the same time filled with humility and the deepest reverence for the Orthodox Tsar.

“Your Majesty! Yuri said. - Allow me, on behalf of our entire film crew and on my own behalf, to testify to you our deepest respect! Previously, you were interviewed as a political and statesman. But we have come to you today as an Orthodox Tsar. At the same time, we want to show you not only as a monarch, but also as a person. We are partially familiar with the biography of your father, Tsar Boris III, and what we know about him makes us admire! Your biography is also amazing. It seemed to us that the outstanding human qualities of your father were transferred to you. We all know about the role of personality in history. But in the Soviet school, this problem was presented as mutilated, inhuman, riddled with lies. With such "knowledge" it was very difficult to navigate. Therefore, today we would like to receive first-hand information, as they say, from the Bulgarian Tsar himself! And we are very grateful to you, Your Majesty, for the fact that you graciously agreed to answer all our questions.

One of the topics touched upon a difficult moment in the life of Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria - the tragic news of the death of his father, Tsar Boris III. It turned out that this day from childhood memories of His Majesty is one of the most vivid and mournful.

“In 1943, at the end of August, my older sister and I were outside Sofia,” recalls Simeon II. “Unexpectedly, my father’s adjutant came in and addressed me with the words “Your Majesty” instead of the usual “Your Highness”, as one should address the son of a living Emperor. We realized that our father had died. My older sister burst into tears, and I began to cry. It was a big shock for us."

The death of the Sovereign was a shock to the entire Bulgarian people. Sorrow swept the country. Tens of thousands of people in inconsolable grief, with tears in their eyes, said goodbye to the Tsar in the Cathedral of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky in Sofia. Young and old, poor and rich, approached the body of the deceased sovereign to say goodbye for six days and nights. The people respected and loved their Tsar, called him the "Unifier"...

It is known that by the beginning of the Second World War, the father of His Majesty Simeon II, Tsar Boris III, did a lot to ensure the neutrality of Bulgaria. For ideological and religious reasons, he could not go for rapprochement with the USSR, but he also did not want to have anything to do with Nazi Germany. However, life decreed in such a way that Boris III, for the security of his country, was forced to join the Nazi coalition (I will talk about this in a little more detail below). But he still did everything in his power to protect Bulgaria from hostilities: in particular, he categorically refused to send Bulgarian troops to the Eastern Front. Moreover, contrary to the demands of the Nazis, at his own peril and risk, he refused to deport 50 thousand Bulgarian Jews from the country, which saved them from inevitable death in concentration camps. Undoubtedly, such a tough position required considerable personal courage from him.

The intransigence and steadfastness of Tsar Boris infuriated the Fuhrer. In 1943, he again summoned him to Berlin for a serious conversation... Upon his return to Sofia, the Tsar dies two weeks later. Doctors made an official conclusion that death was the result of an acute heart attack. However, many in Bulgaria - both then and today - believe that the Nazis poisoned Tsar Boris III. We asked what his son Simeon II thought about this.

“This is a difficult question,” Simeon II answered, “and indeed, many people have been asking themselves for so many years now. But there is no evidence that the father was poisoned. Nothing is said about this either in the German, or in the English, or in the American archives. I also asked the Russian side - you now have a lot of declassified materials. But he did not find anything that could indicate a possible violent death of his father. Therefore, it is not known whether we will ever know the truth. But as a son, I prefer to think that my father died of an illness caused by the most severe psycho-emotional stress that he had to experience in the last months of his life.

Today in Russia people know nothing about the exploits of Tsar Boris. I was not mistaken - about the feat! More than once I had to hear the attacks of people whose consciousness was thoroughly saturated with Bolshevik propaganda and had not yet had time to recover. They still believe that Tsar Boris regularly served Hitler, professing his Nazi ideas, they call him a Nazi criminal, a servant of the Nazis.

I am convinced that this is a hero who was forced to move closer to Hitler, only to become his nominal ally, to save the entire Bulgarian people, to save the Holy Orthodox Faith. What could not be done under the heel of someone who destroyed churches, destroyed clergy and emasculated the Orthodox soul of the Russian people. In my opinion, here one can compare the feat of Tsar Boris with the feat of the holy prince Alexander Nevsky, who categorically rejected the Pope's proposals for military support in exchange for the Catholicization of Orthodox Christians and voluntarily went to humiliation to the bloody Batu for the sake of preserving Holy Russia.

It is important to remember another feat of Tsar Boris III, the salvation of 50,000 Bulgarian Jews. The sovereign categorically refused to deport them, while other allies unquestioningly carried out Hitler's order, for example, in the south of France during the Vichy regime, which lasted until 1942, 75,000 French Jews were deported, including 11,000 children.

The king of the Bulgarian people is called an enemy. For what? Because Tsar Boris signed an agreement with Hitler in March 1941? But why, then, do they not notice the actions of Stalin, who a year before this event becomes an ally of Hitler (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact). Moreover, we know that, in fact, this pact began the predatory division of European territories - the USSR took the eastern territory of Poland, the Baltic states for itself. This is the policy for which neither the Poles nor the Balts can ever forgive us! Here are two faithful allies - Hitler and Stalin, who first tore apart the lands and peoples together, and then fought among themselves for power, while killing tens of millions of innocent people! Why, when the conversation comes about Tsar Boris, do they try not to remember this?

During the war, not a single shot was fired at our soldiers by the Bulgarian army! But Odessa was occupied by Romanian troops. But this did not stop Stalin from awarding the Order of Victory to the Romanian King Mihai I, he was also called the Komsomol King! And brand Tsar Boris as an enemy and indirectly (or maybe directly) contribute to the expulsion of his son Simeon II from the country. At the same time, few people know that in 1946, shortly before the forced departure of the royal family, the car of the nine-year-old Tsar Simeon II, in which he and his mother went to church for the Divine Liturgy, was riddled with machine guns, and only by the great mercy of God no one was hurt. There is no doubt that the communist terrorists did it. The same communist terrorists tried to kill Tsar Boris in April 1925. His car was shot, but the Tsar miraculously survived. His personal bodyguard and fellow traveler were killed, the driver was wounded. On the same day, Deputy General Konstantin Georgiev was killed. During the general's funeral, the communists detonated a bomb in the temple. The explosion killed more than 120 people, including the mayor of Sofia, the chief of police, a whole class of lyceum students...

Tsar Boris was a fearless man. And even after the assassination attempt, he was often seen walking alone through the streets of Sofia. One elderly Bulgarian told me the following. His father worked as a hairdresser. Once an elegant man entered his hall and asked him to shave him. His father seated the client in a chair and was about to start work, when he suddenly saw the reflection of the Tsar in the mirror! He looked up at the wall on which the portrait of Boris III hung, looked at the client, looked at the portrait again - and so several times until he realized who was in front of him! My father’s hands immediately began to shake, and he said with difficulty: “Your Majesty, I can’t shave you, my hands are shaking with excitement!” Tsar Boris smiled: “Nothing, nothing!”, got up and went out into the street. Here is a touch to the portrait.

In 1943, Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia blessed the six-year-old prince Simeon. On this occasion, a long festive Liturgy with a prayer service was served in the churches. The Bulgarian Parliament also solemnly proclaimed the heir to the throne as Tsar. However, something else remained in the memory of Simeon II - how Vladyka Stefan, dressed in the white clothes of the Exarch, came to them, to the royal residence of Vran, and talked for a long time with Queen Mary about a trip to the Moscow Patriarchate. After all, the Russian Orthodox Church helped the Bulgarian one to overcome the Greco-Bulgarian schism1). During the reign of Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia, elected Exarch of Bulgaria, with the mediation of the Russian Orthodox Church, the state of schism between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Bulgarian Church was liquidated.

By the way, this meeting took place in the same room where, almost 70 years later, we recorded an interview with Simeon II!

Three years later, in 1946, the communists came to power in Bulgaria. They, of course, immediately liquidated the monarchy, on September 15 they declared the country a "people's republic", and on September 16, Simeon II, together with his mother, older sister and aunt, left their homeland. This is the only reason they survived. Three years before these terrible events, when the six-year-old tsar ascended the throne, a Regency Council of three people was created, which included Prince Kirill of Bulgaria, the younger brother of Tsar Boris III. In September 1944, when the government of the pro-Soviet Popular Front seized power in Bulgaria, the regents were arrested and in February 1945 they were shot, along with eight tsarist advisers, twenty-two ministers, and sixty deputies of the National Assembly of Bulgaria. In their place, the communists appointed their own people, headed by the communist Todor Pavlov, who owns the words: “We (the communists) took this power with blood and we will give it back only with blood; no rivers, no seas, no oceans of blood will force us to give it up.” It is quite clear that with such sentiments, the communists could easily destroy both the Bulgarian Tsar and all his relatives. Did Simeon II understand the danger of his position?

“I think that my mother understood this very well, so it was the hardest for her,” said Simeon II. - Knowing about the tragic death of the Russian royal family and having two minor children in her arms, she, of course, was very worried. We, the children, most likely had a slightly different idea of ​​what was happening around us.

It was a very turbulent time, the time of an illegal plebiscite (referendum). With the support of comrades from the USSR, the Communists of Bulgaria, who by that time had occupied all the key posts in the country, in the presence of a contingent of Red Army troops, held a "nationwide" referendum and announced the creation of a people's republic and the overthrow of the monarchy. It is striking that, according to official figures, 94 percent of Bulgarians spoke in favor of a republic, not knowing what it is. After all, Bulgaria has never been a republic before. It is clear that 94 percent is an absolutely artificial, rigged result, the result of illegal manipulations, which the communists mastered to perfection.

Naturally, the mother of Simeon II could not stay in the "flushed" Bulgaria for a single minute. Moreover, an attempt was already made on the royal family, which I wrote about above. One of them, perhaps, was enough for Tsarina John, fearing for the lives of her children, to decide to leave Bulgaria. Her parents, King of Italy Victor Emmanuel III and Queen Elena, already lived in Egypt. The Communists suggested to Queen Joanna that twenty days later she would sail to Egypt by ship from Varna via Odessa. But when she heard about Odessa, she was frightened, because she thought that her family might well be arrested in this city, and she flatly refused this route. As a result, the family urgently left Bulgaria and left for Egypt on a Turkish ship that was leaving Istanbul. So the nine-year-old Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria ended up in a foreign land, became the Tsar in exile.

There was a Russian church in Alexandria, where mostly Russian emigrants prayed. Here the mother of Simeon II became close friends with some members of the Romanov family - her relatives along the line of her mother Queen Elena, in the past Princess of Montenegro. On major Orthodox holidays, they visited the Greek Orthodox Cathedral.

In Egypt, Simeon II studied at an English college. In 1951 the family moved to Madrid. But here it was not possible to continue studying in English, and then Simeon II was sent to the French Lyceum, after which the army period of the Tsar of Bulgaria began.

His mother and all his Bulgarian entourage abroad believed that the young man was obliged to do military service. In this regard, he entered one of the largest US military academies, Valley Forge, where, despite strict discipline, he was very interested in studying. At the same time, His Majesty attends courses in political science and law at the Complutense University. He studies under the surname Rilsky. None of the students suspected that the modest cadet Rilsky was the Bulgarian Tsar. After returning to Madrid, he entered the University of Madrid at the Faculty of International Relations and Law. Then he began to engage in private business, in which his knowledge of several foreign languages ​​\u200b\u200bwas very helpful.

When Simeon II was 18 years old, his uncle King Umberto II of Italy insisted that Simeon II officially proclaim himself the acting Tsar by reading a special Manifesto. Moreover, this procedure was to be carried out especially solemnly, always with a prayer service. Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria read out the Manifesto in the presence of Russian Archimandrite Panteleimon, Tsarina Joanna, King Umberto II, numerous Bulgarian emigrants, Spanish ministers and diplomats. Here is the text of the Manifesto:

"Bulgarians!

Today, June 16, 1955, I turn 18 years old, and according to the Constitution of the Bulgarian Kingdom, I come of age. Announcing this event to my beloved people in accordance with paragraph 31 of our Basic Law, I call on God's mercy and intercession in its future fate.

Dear compatriots!

It has been 10 years since our Fatherland is suffering under the yoke of an anti-people regime, established by the will and with the help of a foreign conqueror. Freedom, Justice and Humanity are trampled today on the beautiful Bulgarian land. In the turbulent years of our modern history, the Bulgarian people managed to build their state on a truly democratic basis and win civil liberties guaranteed by the Tarnovo Constitution2). Bulgaria has risen as an independent and prosperous state, enjoying universal respect and striving for a brighter future, despite numerous encroachments on the independence of Bulgaria. The current government initially did not dare to cancel the Tyrnovo Constitution, promised to protect and correctly apply its orders, but later, by someone else's order and by someone else's armed force, they forcibly established a new constitution, contrary to our way of life and traditions. But the Tarnovo Constitution continues to live as a cherished ideal in the minds and feelings of every Bulgarian. It has never been legally abolished, since the constitutional law cannot be changed, supplemented or canceled except in accordance with the procedure provided for in it. The Tarnovo Constitution is alive to this day in the eternal, inextinguishable striving of the Bulgarian people for the rights and freedoms consecrated by it.

Dear compatriots!

The murder of My uncle, Prince Kirill, and all other innocent people, the mockery of the memory of My late Father, the beloved and honored Tsar Boris III, as well as slander against the Bulgarian dynasty, leave in Me heavy and sad memories of My childhood full of sorrow and misfortune. I know that the Bulgarian people are not involved in these acts. I also know that the illegal plebiscite (referendum) held on September 8, 1946, was only a semblance of a popular poll. Leaving the Motherland, I did not renounce the Bulgarian Throne. As a result, and in accordance with the Tarnovo constitution, I am still connected with a difficult mission predetermined for me by Providence. On the day of My coming of age, deprived of the opportunity to take the established oath before the Great National Assembly, I solemnly promise to serve faithfully and truthfully to the Bulgarian people, to keep sacred and inviolable all the provisions of the Constitution, to work for the complete triumph of the free institutions won by our people at the cost of many battles and such dear sacrifices. . Giving this sacred vow before the image of our dear Motherland, I send an appeal to all kind-loving Bulgarians, regardless of their past political convictions and social status, to give each other a hand, forget enmity and rivalry and start working together for the salvation of Bulgaria. The unity of all Bulgarian children is needed today more than ever. As the first citizen of Bulgaria and in the name of the institution I represent, I solemnly declare that for Me all Bulgarians are equal, and I will support any initiative that is in line with the Tarnovo Constitution and aimed at the liberation and prosperity of Bulgaria.

God is with us!

Long live free and independent Bulgaria!

Printed in exile

Simeon II

Today, His Majesty Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria is the only Orthodox tsar in the world. The Orthodox King Mihai I of Romania is called a king, not a king. Peter II of Yugoslavia was also king. Tsar is a monarchical title that has been in Bulgaria for centuries. “His Majesty is the last anointed monarch both in Bulgaria and in the world,” Professor Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov told me pointedly.

His Majesty once called Bulgaria "an Orthodox country with traditions that distinguish it from the Roman Catholic heart of Europe." However, these differences in religion did not prevent him from falling in love with a girl of the Catholic faith - the Spanish noblewoman Margarita Gomez-Acebo-i-Sehuele. And here there is an obstacle. The fact is that the Vatican requires non-Catholics who marry Catholics to sign a special document obliging parents to raise their children in the Catholic faith. Before the wedding, Simeon II had to meet with Pope John XXIII three times and negotiate with him on this topic. Fortunately, the Pope was sympathetic to the request of His Majesty. Perhaps it helped that for several years Pope John XXIII represented the interests of the Holy See in Bulgaria under Tsar Boris III. And it was under him that Tsar Boris III baptized the elder sister of Simeon II into the Orthodox faith, contrary to all the expectations of Catholics. That is, he knew that there was such a problem, it was probably not easy for him to decide on this, but he went to meet His Majesty. The wedding according to the Orthodox rite took place in the Russian Orthodox Church in the name of the Holy Great Martyr Barbara in Vevey (Switzerland), and the newlyweds were married by the Bulgarian and Russian Bishops - the Bulgarian Metropolitan Andrei from New York and the Archbishop of Geneva and Western Europe of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Anthony.

Nevertheless, the Bulgarian Queen Margarita professes Catholicism. During filming, we asked His Majesty if this was a problem for Simeon II.

“As you probably know,” Simeon II replied, “I also come from a mixed marriage: my father was an Orthodox Christian, my mother was a Catholic. However (here are the paradoxes of our life!) despite this, my mother very energetically inspired me and my sister with the Orthodox faith. That is, in the fact that we have become Orthodox Christians, there is undoubtedly no small merit of her.”

“In spite of everything, we baptized our first two sons in Orthodoxy,” said Simeon II, “while my wife was not against it at all and even herself suggested that the second son also become an Orthodox Christian. However, don't get me wrong, we lived in Catholic Spain. In this country, faith is especially scrupulous. Therefore, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings and at the request of the wife of the following children, we baptized into the Catholic faith. But we never had any problems in this regard and do not arise until now. When the children grew up, they said that one Sunday they go "to the temple of our father", on another Sunday - "to the temple of our mother". By the way, my eldest son also has Orthodox children, his wife converted to Orthodoxy a year and a half ago, she is from Spain. My Catholic daughter's son is also Orthodox. It is important to believe in God - for me this is the main thing.

For the first thirty years, watching the development of political relations between East and West, Tsar Simeon II did not even dream of returning to his homeland. And even later, by the end of the 70s - the beginning of the 80s, when some positive changes began, he, according to him, still did not expect to live to see the day when he could see his native Bulgaria again, and even more so return to his homeland in such an exciting way as it happened in May 19963). No “Kremleologist” experts could have imagined such a development of political events, especially what happened in 19894). “Because these things do not depend on a person,” the Tsar of Bulgaria explained in a conversation with us. “So God decreed, and I am infinitely grateful to the Lord for letting me live to this time.”

Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria returned to his homeland in triumph! The Bulgarian people greeted him with jubilation. This is clearly evidenced by the surviving documentary footage of those years. It is impossible to watch them without excitement. But this event was preceded not only by the revival of the monarchical idea, cardinal political changes in Bulgaria, an unfavorable economic situation, but also by many appeals of the Bulgarians to their king with an invitation to return to their homeland. Here is one of the many appeals, the so-called "Letter of 101 Intellectuals", addressed to His Majesty and published in November 1995. “Your Majesty! Consider this appeal as a call and an invitation to visit Bulgaria at a convenient time for you. We, like many Bulgarians, would like to hear in a live meeting here in Bulgaria, your opinion and proposals for overcoming the difficult crisis and finding a new, more favorable path to prosperity (prosperity) and well-being for our country and our people.” The invitation was accepted with the words: “My boundless desire to see Bulgaria already as a conscious person, and not just through the eyes of a child, together with your appeal and the urgent invitation of many Bulgarians, led me to the conclusion that the time has come for me to return to where I was born. Until now, I have abstained, because I was guided not by impulsive desire, but by the determination to put above everything else the calm and peaceful course of democratic processes in my Motherland ... ”The Tsar of Bulgaria accepts the invitation. But Bulgaria is no longer a monarchical country. And therefore, at the request of the Bulgarians, His Majesty creates the political party "National Movement of Simeon II", convincingly wins the elections and becomes the country's prime minister. However, for many Bulgarians, he was and remains the Tsar-father, the Father, the Sovereign.

“I was taught from childhood that the Tsar is outside politics, his activities are non-partisan, and therefore it was very difficult to make a decision to create a party and enter politics. But if a person wants and can make his contribution to the life of the country, serve the Motherland, then he must sacrifice something,” said Simeon II.

Director of Religious Affairs at the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria in 2002-2008, Professor Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov, on the eve of an interview with the Tsar of Bulgaria, told me the following: “I know Tsar Simeon very well. Regardless of how society perceives him, whether they recognize him as a king or not, for me His Majesty is the Bulgarian Tsar Simenon II! He is anointed to the kingdom. As a theologian, I want to emphasize that His Majesty is an Orthodox monarch. He is a Christian who keeps his faith. In the conditions of a very difficult emigration, in a foreign land, in a non-Orthodox environment, he remained Orthodox! .. "

“This man sacrificed his royal dignity in order to become the minister-chairman of Bulgaria at the request of the people. I regard His Majesty's coming into politics as his sacrifice in favor of Bulgaria,” says the Bulgarian theologian.

According to him, Austrian and Italian blood flows in the Tsar of Bulgaria. “But he is Bulgarian more than all of us, because belonging to a nation is determined not by family ties, but by the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of the people.”

The other day, I was told the words of a popular Bulgarian who, having learned that I want to make a film about the Bulgarian Tsar, spoke about the unpopularity of Simeon II among the Bulgarians, saying that he “took off half the country for himself”, and also spoke unflatteringly about his father Tsar Boris III. Maybe this Bulgarian is ideologized to such an extent that he no longer has his own opinion? Or maybe he represents the opinion of a handful of former political opponents of Simeon II. Don't know. But I know something else. During our stay in Bulgaria, we talked with many Bulgarians: both young and old, walked the streets of Sofia and asked the Bulgarians if they know who Simeon II is and how they treat him. Most spoke of him with pride, that he was "our King"!

“All my life, I had one single desire - the well-being of Bulgaria and my people. For me, my compatriots are people with heart and soul, and not just an electoral mass ... Artificial division into "left" and "right" against the backdrop of a difficult world economic situation is a completely outdated approach that wastes our strength and energy, and we are just wasting valuable time. Today, the criteria for well-being are economic prosperity, the presence of honest entrepreneurs and conscientious government officials ... And we are witnessing continuous civil strife, personal battles, irreverent manners, greed, selfishness, arrogance, lack of ideals and patriotism ... ”- these words belong to the Tsar himself Bulgarian Simeon II, with which he addressed the Bulgarian people on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his accession to the Throne.

We were interested in whether there were situations with His Majesty when the Orthodox consciousness was in conflict with the duties that he had to perform as a statesman.

"No, they didn't!" - answered the Sovereign. He endured the well-known events connected with the church schism in Bulgaria very hard. This was confirmed by Professor Ivan Zhelev. And when this trouble was finally put to an end, Simeon II, according to Zhelev, was incredibly grateful to the Lord, Who preserved the unity of the Holy Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

It should be specially noted that the liquidation of the church schism, which was very painful for the Bulgarian people, became possible precisely with the coming to power of Simeon II. The country's new president, Georgy Parvanov, and the new prime minister immediately declared their full support for the canonical Bulgarian Church. And the Directorate of Religions, headed by Ivan Zhelev, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Sofia University, restored the state registration of Patriarch Maxim as head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

We asked what His Majesty thought of the Patriarchate, and he replied that he had infinite respect for both the Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Patriarch. And at the same time he added that the same feelings are inherent in every Bulgarian. “When I meet His Holiness, it is always a special day for me!” - said His Majesty.

In 1968, Simeon II declared: "To be a Tsar is dedication, calmness and moderation, self-restraint, the ability to govern the state, to be the personification of national unity and faith in man." Outside in 2011. We asked him if he would change anything in his words today? Or would you leave everything as it is?

“I can only emphasize,” Simeon II said, “that one must have great patience and always treat people warmly, regardless of their views. Each of us has the right to freedom of thought. I cannot consider my enemy a person who thinks differently, sets himself other goals and tasks. Moreover, in an honest, open dialogue, if you wish, you can always find common ground. There are many ways to achieve this, but patience is indispensable here. I believe in the creative power of such a virtue as patience. When we set ourselves a great goal - the well-being of our society, we cannot do without this virtue.

Speaking about Russian-Bulgarian relations and the prospects for their development, His Majesty noted that we have much in common - both in history and in language. But most importantly, we have a common religion! This is what brings people together the most. And when we asked to say a parting word to the Russians, the Bulgarian Tsar said: “I want to wish the Russian people - this is very personal! - to preserve our common Orthodox faith. This is especially important right now, in this difficult time. By preserving the Orthodox faith, we thereby contribute to the fact that as many people as possible turn to the Lord. In this sense, people can always count on my readiness to bring all my strength to the cause of multiplying our Holy Faith at any moment.”

Filming was long. We asked seventeen questions, and all seventeen questions received detailed, thorough answers. There was one unpleasant moment for us: when His Majesty remembered the death of his father, the equipment did not work properly, and the answer was not recorded. We had to ask His Majesty to repeat everything he said, and Simeon II accepted our request with understanding. Although it was not easy for him to talk about this topic.

Yuri Belyaev was so impressed by the meeting that in the end he could not resist and told Simeon II that he felt the most sincere desire to become a loyal subject of His Majesty.

After filming, everyone went out to the garden to take a photo for memory. His Majesty said that he wanted to come to Russia, now he has a desire to visit Siberia.

Of course, we were tired, but it was some kind of special fatigue, it did not torment us. Everyone was in high spirits. At the end of the meeting, His Majesty was approached and told that Queen Margaret was waiting for Him. We warmly said goodbye. After that, His Majesty got behind the wheel of a simple Hyundai and left with Her Majesty.

Personally, I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude to His Majesty and completely subdued by this amazing person, subdued and delighted with his inner world.

Notes:

1 Schism (ancient Greek σχίσμα - “splitting, split, strife”) - a split in the Church, separation from the dominant church. Schism refers to the state when certain local churches lose unity among themselves.

The Greek-Bulgarian schism (Bulgarian schism, the Bulgarian ecclesiastical question) is the unilateral proclamation of autocephaly on May 11, 1872 by the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of Bulgarian origin (in fact, the schism occurred as early as April 1860) and the bans that followed in September of the same year from the kyriarchal Church - Constantinople ( Ecumenical) Patriarchy, as well as a number of others. The autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Church was recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople only in February 1945.

1) His Majesty Simeon II, under the pseudonym "Semyon Rilsky", was successfully engaged in private business, advising large international companies on foreign economic issues.

2) The Tarnovo Constitution - the first constitution of the Bulgarian Principality, was adopted on April 16, 1879 in the city of Veliko Tarnovo after the country was liberated from the Ottoman yoke. In 1911, the Fifth Great National Assembly of Bulgaria made a complete edition of the Tarnovo Constitution, in accordance with the new legal and international status of the Bulgarian state, which after September 22, 1908 - the Day of the declaration of independence of the country - was no longer called the Principality, but the Kingdom. The words "principality" and "prince" in the Tarnovo constitution were changed to "kingdom" and "king".

3) The Tsar of Bulgaria, who set foot on Bulgarian soil for the first time after a half-century break, will turn into the most popular politician, the bright hope of the Bulgarian people.

4) On November 10, 1989, the leader of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, Todor Zhivkov, was removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party. In November 1989, demonstrations began in Sofia under environmental pretexts, which quickly grew into demands for political reforms. In February 1990 - The Bulgarian Communist Party gave up its monopoly on power, in June 1990 the first free elections were held since 1931. They were won by the moderate wing of the Communist Party, which formed the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP). In 1991, Todor Zhivkov was put on trial, he escaped the fate of Nicolae Ceausescu.

Payment instructions (opens in a new window) Yandex.Money donation form:

Other ways to help

Comments 37

Comments

37. sunsets : On number 35
2011-10-13 at 19:10

Dear Slava, re-read message No. 23 from this discussion, go to the website of the Imperial House, and you will understand that in Russia just such a situation is impossible, since the position of the Head of the Imperial House denies such a course of events.

36. John : Glory at 35
2011-10-13 at 16:58

Not a monarchy, but a monarch - the legitimate heir to the throne, the son of Tsar Boris III, put forward his candidacy in the 2001 elections from the new NDSV party (introducing all the old parties with a monarchist mood into great bewilderment and embarrassment) as a citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria Simeon of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. And won. Became prime minister for several years. under a socialist president. And he lost in the next election. In our conversations, it was about the fact that by participating in the political struggle, he voluntarily renounced the monarchical status - supra-political, sacred.

35. Slava Tambovsky : Re: Meeting with the sovereign
2011-10-13 at 15:37

John, I'm sorry, I followed your notes closely, only one question: what happens, the monarchy acted as one of the parties, and lost? I mean, such an option is quite possible in Russia. How else is possible.

33. sunsets : Re: Meeting with the sovereign
2011-10-13 at 10:00

All the best, John! You used a wonderful and, in my opinion, very nice image of two tipsy friends. There is something deeply national in this, which ultimately unites us, despite certain contradictions.

32. John : A. Zakatov
2011-10-13 at 01:20

Alexander, I'm sorry, but you and I are already reminiscent of a couple of tipsy friends who walk each other home all night. It's already dawn, and they all go back and forth. I'll go to my house - do not see me off. All the best!

31. sunsets : John at number 30
2011-10-13 at 00:17

Dear Joanna!

Forgive me, but you distort very much, take phrases out of context and then attribute to me something that I did not even think to assert. By the way, due to the enthusiastic attitude towards Tsar Simeon, Fr. Alexander and his staff are vastly superior to me.

I do not need to know the history of Bulgaria "better than the Bulgarians" in order to understand that those who discredit their historical Dynasty objectively harm the process of the revival of traditional values. And I continue to affirm that the return of the historical Dynasty to the social life of the country is a very important step in the field of healing the ailments generated by the revolution and theomachism.

That is why Sovereigns constantly walk on the edge of a knife. They are openly attacked by obvious enemies, they are discredited by crafty false friends, arrows fly at them both from the left and from the right, they are deliberately provoked and deliberately led into various temptations, etc. etc. This, of course, has to be experienced not only by them, but also by other influential figures, but the Sovereigns are much more difficult than politicians, because their responsibility is incommensurably higher, even if they are currently removed from government. Because they - each in their own country - are the cornerstones of the God-established system of human community.

I will not dispute your opinion about the attitude of the Bulgarians to their Tsar and to the Orthodox Church. I have no reason to trust you more or less than those Bulgarians with whom I myself spoke. Surely, there are those who admire the Tsar and devotedly love him (I have met more of them), and those who are indifferent to him, and those who hate him. What is the true proportion, it is not for me to judge, but, I think, not for you, and, moreover, not for people who show obvious bias. I ask you to consider that in modern society, unfortunately, the mass consciousness has become manipulated to a much greater extent than before. This often gives rise to sad and disturbing outward manifestations. But what is going on in the souls and hearts of people, only God knows.

I believe that at some point we can witness completely unexpected positive changes. At the same time, it is wrong to sit and wait for this to happen by itself or as a result of some miracle. We must try to speed up the process of rebirth (of course, always remembering that we must rely only on God and not flatter ourselves with the thought that the Orthodox monarchy will be restored thanks to our efforts). And any creative activity is impossible with defeatist moods.

I always remember a story I read in childhood about soldiers who got lost at night in the winter in the forest. More than once strength left them and despair took possession of them. Only one wounded soldier, who was carried on a stretcher, kept saying that he saw lights ahead. Finally, the exhausted soldiers went to some village, to the saving fires. And then they saw that the soldier, who had inspired them for long hours in the dark, could not see any lights, as his eyes were burned out in battle ...

This parable made a deep impression on me, and I try to remember it in any circumstances, even if they are a thousand times worse than you think, even if in fact we do not yet see any lights. The one who loses hope dies.

I repeat, for me, a conversation with you is not an "argument", but an exchange of views, evidence that there may be different assessments and interpretations of reality, depending, among other things, on the emotional mood, and not only on reason, calculations and statistical data.

And if we talk about real differences, then they are in your last phrase. You and people who are in solidarity with you, apparently, do not want to serve the Sovereigns, whom God has already GIVEN to us. You are still waiting for some special King who will correspond to your ideas about the ideal. Similarly, the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.

It is impossible to deserve the restoration of the Orthodox Kingdom without serving the legitimate Sovereigns now, when they are deprived of power, when they are persecuted and humiliated, when they are subjected to unpunished slander, when they are deprived of the tools and opportunities to truly punish or substantially encourage. The sins and mistakes of the Kings cannot justify either our betrayal or our indifference. This is what I really want to prove to everyone.

30. John : Zakatov at 29
2011-10-12 at 22:32

Dear Alexander, I am not irritated or angry. I'm trying to understand what you want to prove to me. And I can't. Let's go back to the beginning.

About the article itself. She is a personal impression of Alexander's father. Without claims and conclusions of a universal scale. That's what it says in the title. I have no questions for the author. Only a small correction, which relates more to the words of Professor Zhelev (Dimitrov is his patronymic).

But your conclusions prompted me to write an answer. You said in your comment that - I quote: "But in terms of the return of traditional values, Bulgaria is ahead of us very much."
THIS IS NOT TRUE. DOES NOT LEAD BUT STRONGLY LAGGER.
I quote further: “I am only convinced that where the two main spiritual and historical pillars of people's existence - the Church and the Royal Dynasty - stand firmly and enjoy the moral support of the people (even if not everyone is a practicing parishioner, and not everyone is ready to give their lives for the Tsar and the Monarchy), the process of reviving traditional values ​​has risen to a higher quality level.”
AND THIS IS NOT TRUE. DID NOT GET UP. DO NOT STAND STRONGLY. AND DO NOT USE MASS SUPPORT.
Further in the same spirit.
Now, as I understand it, you know Bulgarian history better than the Bulgarians themselves. And if not, then why did they undertake to judge? I repeat once again that the Balkans is a different world, no parallels and “methodologies” work here. Here everything is your own - watch the films of Kosturica. And history, especially such a tragic one, needs to be comprehended. At the same time, it will not work to not touch the reigning dynasty and only glorify it. And some national catastrophes are closely connected with the names of the kings - you can’t untie them, you can’t make “white PR” out of them, even crack! But still, I would leave it to the Bulgarians themselves to figure it out. They can see better anyway. I never interfered - I think that this is inappropriate, stupid and tactless. In this regard, Father Alexander's article is within the prescribed framework. In more detail, it is better to entrust the professionals of the “indigenous nationality”. The same is true about spiritual advance and a qualitatively new level. But there will definitely not be cream cakes. And the point here is in reality, and not in “black PR”. She is so black, not PR. Alas!

In vain you suspect me of wanting to add fuel to the fire of anti-monarchist propaganda. I don't even know that such propaganda exists. I work for the glory of God in the field of Orthodox education and I believe that the Lord will send us an Orthodox Sovereign when we deserve it.

29. sunsets : John at No. 27 and 28
2011-10-12 at 19:52

Dear Joanna!

In vain you are irritated, angry and trying to frighten me. I know perfectly well that any Sovereign has many enemies and opponents, both on the left and on the right, and they will not keep themselves waiting if they have an opportunity to assert themselves.

I don’t want to “leave the last word for myself” at all, but I simply consider it necessary to answer the interlocutor if he maintains a conversation and continues to put forward his arguments.

I don't want anything from you. I only want to prove that Father Alexander, even if he made a mistake in something and presented something in a somewhat embellished form, treats the Tsar the way Orthodox Christians are supposed to treat him - with love and respect. And the detractors of the Sovereign and the Royal House take upon themselves a heavy responsibility and fall into the sin of pride, condemnation and kingship.

I never "spill mud" on anyone. If you were outraged by my critical remarks about Mr. Todorov, then why are you not outraged when he depicts the Bulgarian Royal House in deliberately black colors? In your opinion, Mr. Todorov can write about the Tsar and the Dynasty whatever he wants, and if the monarchists give this a negative assessment, then this is "pouring mud"? Double standards, so familiar to us from internal Russian discussions...

I read Mr. Todorov's articles, understood perfectly and could translate them myself (it is enough to find in the dictionary just a few words that I could not translate on the fly, but which did not prevent me from understanding the essence of the author's position and the level of his argumentation). , even written in a near-academic style, believe me, there is no reason.

In Russia, even without Mr. Todorov, there are enough people who imagine themselves to be judges of everything and everyone. So I don’t see the point in somehow especially highlighting it from the general series. If you are striving for a truly honest and comprehensive discussion, then it would be best and most correct to translate into Russian evenly the articles of both critics of the Bulgarian Royal House and people loyal to it. And you, apparently, are determined to add Bulgarian-made butter to the fire of anti-monarchist and anti-dynastic propaganda in Russia. Do not be offended, but this is a deliberately biased and biased approach.

In no way claiming to have any super-deep knowledge in the field of Bulgarian history, I can say that they are, nevertheless, sufficient to understand the injustice and inferiority of the METHODOLOGY of the creators of "black PR" in relation to Tsar Simeon. Countries and circumstances are different, but the schemes and scenarios of discrediting are approximately the same everywhere.

Regarding the "last anointed King", yes, you are right, and I also immediately drew attention to this. Of course, this is an erroneous statement by Prof. Dimitrov, and it is generally not clear why the emphasis should be placed on this. If he meant that Tsar Simeon was the last Orthodox monarch who really reigned in his country and did not sign the abdication, then there is also King Constantine of the Hellenes. But here, after all, we are dealing with particularity. The last or not the last, anointed or not anointed, but Simeon II is definitely a LEGAL HEREDITARY ORTHODOX Tsar.

28. John : at 26
2011-10-12 at 17:48

27. John : Zakatov at 26
2011-10-12 at 17:45

To be honest, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. What do you want to prove to me?
If you are not used to leaving the last word not for yourself, then I will gladly give it to you. Just stop throwing mud at the author of an article that you could not read - it already looks like complete impotence. Look, provoke someone, then something that is really not good to show can come out into the light.
In addition to Mr. Todorov, there were several serious historians following our discussion, ready to participate in an article for those interested in the Bulgarian monarchy, ready to have a serious, professional conversation with people who have never been to Bulgaria, but everyone knows about Bulgarian kings, Bulgarian history and spirituality. level of the Bulgarian people. I repeat once again: serious, professional, and not talking about bile and pink bows. Bulgaria will undoubtedly benefit from such a conversation. If she is really interested in someone other than you.

26. sunsets : John at number 25
2011-10-12 at 14:29

Dear Joanna!

I have no doubt that Mr. Todorov will still have a lot of bile. But what is the use of Bulgaria from trying to discredit the Royal House? What is this Mr. Todorov trying to achieve? And why does he not want to see anything positive, but diligently collects only what, in his opinion, can discredit Tsar Simeon, his father and grandfather?

It is not clear what you wanted to express with your remark regarding the chrismation of the Bulgarian Tsars of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty. Royal chrismation is a very important sacrament, the Great Sacrament, which helps to perform the Royal service. But it adds nothing to the legitimacy of Sovereigns. The hereditary monarch perceives the rights and obligations at the time of the death of the previous one by virtue of the law, and not by virtue of chrismation. St. Tsar Nicholas II the Passion-Bearer ascended the throne in 1894, and was married to the throne in 1896. For these two years, he, nevertheless, was the legitimate sovereign of our country.

25. John : Zakatov at 24
2011-10-12 at 13:30

Dear Mr. Zakatov.
Allow me to disagree with you about "typical pseudo-Orthodox tsarism." To be honest, I don't even know what it is. Especially - "typical".
I think you did not understand the general meaning of the articles and everything else. There is no aggression or anger there, the tone is very calm, there is a desire to understand and find ways out, there is pain for one's country. If a person writes without aspiration and sugaring, this does not mean that he oozes poison. He is a respected person, a theologian, former editor of the church newspaper of the Holy Synod of the BOC.
I have already found the author - he is in Jordan with a pilgrimage group, will return soon, then I can phone him and ask him to write a serious and earthly article about the Bulgarian monarchy for Russian readers. If he agrees, I will translate and find where to publish. Then we'll talk. Specifically, and not just about poisons, vicious empty holiness and tsarism.

Yes, one more word on the article about. Alexandra. Not a single Bulgarian Tsar was anointed to the kingdom. When they talk about the chrismation of Tsar Boris III, this means chrismation during the transition from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

24. sunsets : Typical pseudo-Orthodox king fighting
2011-10-12 at 09:47

Dear Joanna!

I have read the articles by Mr. Todorov recommended by you. Maybe I did not understand all the words, but the general meaning is clear. Unfortunately, I did not see anything but malicious empty holiness and aggression. The author is initially tuned in to the negative, he does not have the slightest desire to objectively sort it out "without anger and predilection", he literally oozes poison. Interestingly, would he write about the mistakes and shortcomings of his parents with the same attitude?

23. sunsets : John at number 22
2011-10-12 at 09:24

I do not presume to judge a particular unread book or article. But I know from experience and historical analysis that usually "supermonarchists", who consider themselves the guardians of the monarchical ideal more than the monarch himself, and use the mistakes of their Sovereigns in order to renounce them and begin to discredit them with pleasure, destroy Orthodox spiritual values more than all the revolutionaries and atheists put together.

As for the political activity of Tsar Simeon, here, indeed, most likely a serious mistake took place. For comparison, here is the position of Empress Maria Vladimirovna on this issue: “A monarch cannot be either a real or even a symbolic leader of a party. A monarchy should unite, not divide. Any party is a part of a nation that, to one degree or another, is in conflict with its other parts.. The arbitrator (which should be the monarch) cannot play on the field for one of the teams, and the judge cannot be both a plaintiff and a defendant in court ...

If the monarch or the head of the dynasty decides to lead the party, thinking that by doing so he can bring more benefit to the country, this is his choice. But he must be aware that in the future there will forever remain a doubt - whether he is the monarch of all citizens, or expresses the interests of only a part of society. And this doubt morally undermines the monarchy at its very foundation.

So the “monarchist party”, in my opinion, is nonsense. Another thing is if the programs of a number of leading parties contain the thesis that the monarchy is one of the possible ways for the country's development in the future. The desire of various parties to have supra-party strength is as natural as the desire of an orchestra to have a conductor. The conductor himself does not play musical instruments, but without him the music turns into a cacophony. A monarch, without engaging in practical politics, is able to eliminate the cacophony from a political concert. He conducts not as he is told, as he is pushed or as he is required to pay, but as it is necessary, pardon the pun, for the harmonious performance of each of his part.

(...) Monarchy is by nature paternal power. Therefore, it is both supra-party, and supra-class, and supra-national. For the monarch, all citizens of the country are his sons and daughters. It has always been like this: it is no coincidence that the Russian people themselves called the tsar father, and the tsarina mother. The sovereign cannot turn away from one of his compatriots if he has different beliefs, social status or skin color. /maria/1330.html)

However, the Bulgarians, faithful to the Orthodox-monarchical ideal, should not judge and defame their Tsar, but help him overcome the negative consequences of a wrong step.

22. John : Zakatov at 20
2011-10-12 at 01:22

The level of reverence has not become higher, but quite the contrary. I think I've made this clear enough. About what the common people say. Literate people also talk about the desacralization of the monarchy. The fact that the founding of a party by the Tsar and participation in parliamentary elections, competition with other political parties is an anti-monarchist, anti-sacred and anti-dynastic move. “De facto, this means the adoption of the current constitution and ipso facto, the voluntary renunciation of monarchical status” - this is from Georgy Todorov’s article “Headless Monarchy” http://www.pravoslav...enata_monarhija.htm

(both - in Bulgarian) - not ceremonial, not marmalade, but real, written by a Bulgarian, a believer, an Orthodox theologian, with pain about his native country and about the Orthodox monarchy.

21. grandfather pensioner : If he wants Stalin, liberal democracy, Hitler, Pol Pot or papa Duvalier...
2011-10-12 at 01:12

The list is incomplete and unfair.
Started with Stalin - finished with Papa Duvalier!
Ugliness!
It would be nice to have mother Wang!
Old Wang is ashamed not to know!

20. sunsets : John at number 19
2011-10-12 at 00:03

It didn't seem to me that I was "arguing" with you, and nowhere did I judge what I didn't know. In my opinion, we were simply exchanging views on the conceptual content of Fr. Alexandra.

However, I cannot fail to note that in your remark No. 19 you either stubbornly refuse to understand what I said - from the very beginning to the present moment, or you contradict yourself. In your opinion, it turns out that honoring the Tsar is right, but it cannot be said that a society in which the level of reverence for the Tsar has become at least somewhat higher has achieved some success in the process of reviving spiritual values. This is at least illogical.

19. John : Zakatov at 18
2011-10-11 at 22:21

So they would have said right away instead of judging what you don’t know.

“I am only convinced that where the two main spiritual and historical pillars of people's existence - the Church and the Royal Dynasty - stand firmly and enjoy the moral support of the people (even if not everyone is a practicing parishioner, and not everyone is ready to give their lives for the Tsar and the Monarchy) , the process of reviving traditional values ​​has risen to a higher quality level.”

He has not risen and will not rise, even though we will bicker here for another month. I'm mostly talking about this. Sincerely, John.

18. sunsets : John at number 17
2011-10-11 at 20:48

Dear Joanna!

There can be no dispute about the fact that in the first place, there can be no dispute between the Orthodox - in the first place is always God - the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, love for Him and service to Him.

But if, with this faith and this consciousness, we gradually begin to consider ourselves "above" and "outside" the second and third of the trinity, then we will surely fall into pride and sectarianism.

The spirit is above all, but in earthly life we ​​also consist of a soul and a body, and we must always remember this, and not try to portray ourselves as incorporeal and sinless spirits.

"Orthodox wants ..." - this is from your vocabulary, which I deliberately used when answering you. Please re-read your previous remark.

I don't use anything for "internal" or "external" use. For everyone, I write what I think. Otherwise, your claims should not be addressed to me, but to the author of the article, with whom, I repeat, I agree in his main attitude to the topic, and not in the nuances that can always be disputed or questioned in some way (but only in detail).

Turnover "albeit a little, but very significantly reduced" - not a typo at all. We can mindlessly run a long distance forward, and then have to run back even faster. And we can go one or two steps, but it will be much more difficult to turn back. No matter what nasty things they say about Tsar Simeon, no matter what he is accused of - now try to delete him from the life of modern Bulgaria. Even if he himself or his advisers made some mistakes - and who did not make them?

Arguments and statistics are needed in controversy, but they are secondary to the principles under discussion. And I, just, consider it necessary to follow not personal sympathies and changeable and differently interpreted data, but the PRINCIPLE of serving Lawful Sovereigns.

I do not propose any "pluralism" in the sphere of attitude to Truth. If we are Orthodox, then we firmly believe that what the Holy Orthodox Church teaches is true, just and correct. This is what we serve and in this we find the joy of being.

For many centuries the Church has been teaching us, following the words of the Apostle Peter: "Fear God, honor the Tsar." I am not calling for anything else.

17. John : Zakatov at 16
2011-10-11 at 16:28

Dear Mr Zakatov,

“The desire for the Kingdom of God cannot be based on the rejection of the Kingdom of the earth, just as the desire for the Heavenly Church cannot be based on the rejection of the earthly Church.”

I did not talk about the rejection of the earthly or heavenly, but only reminded that in the first place.

“If an Orthodox wants to have the power of a tsar over himself, this is normal, since it stems from Orthodox dogma. If he wants Stalin, liberal democracy, Hitler, Pol Pot or Papa Duvalier, then either he has a confusion of concepts in his mind, or (which is worse, but, alas, it happens) he is not Orthodox at all, but deliberately destroys the Church from within ."

"Orthodox wants" - in my opinion, this is an oxymoron. “I want” is not from the Orthodox dictionary.
From the Orthodox - "Thy will be done."

“I myself am an idealist and an optimist. Probably, he would not be able to fulfill his duties if he were not such. But these qualities do not interfere with a realistic assessment of reality.

Many of us are idealists and optimists. And this does not always prevent a correct assessment of reality. I normally treat idealism as something “for internal use”, when the harm from it can only concern me. But everything that is brought out to people must be treated with great responsibility. In order to realistically assess reality, you need to study it well, you need to master the question. Come, live here for five years, feel what the Balkan specificity is, understand how the mentality of the Bulgarian brothers differs from the Russian one, get acquainted with the situation - spiritual, political, economic, study the history of the country thoroughly, and then draw any conclusions. Otherwise, you are just misleading people.

“Both in Russia and Bulgaria, the restoration of the monarchy is very, very far away. However, where the historical dynasty returned to the public life of its country, the distance to the goal, albeit a little, but very significantly, was reduced.

I don’t quite understand the phrase “albeit a little, but it has decreased quite significantly”, this is probably just a typo, but I’m sure that the distance has not decreased by a single gram. Rather, the opposite is true. It was very short when His Majesty returned to Bulgaria. When the new kings had not yet taken root, when the people were still deciding something, when they believed and rejoiced in the legitimate (completely legal - no one argues with this, and this is the real advantage of Bulgaria) Tsar and believed in him, believed that The sovereign returned in order to save Bulgaria, and not in order, using the power of the prime minister, to return his property and provide for his children. So you say that he did not have much time. But this is what he did in the first place, which the people, if you really do a serious survey, will certainly point out. This will be said by the most ordinary people, and by no means "so ideologized that they no longer have their own opinion", not the victims of "the opinion of a handful of former political opponents of Simeon II."
Yes, the historical dynasty is present in the public life of the country - this is a fact. It is present as long as it does not interfere with anyone and does not have popularity. On this score, I personally have no illusions.

“Otherwise, one can argue for a long time, citing various arguments, statistics, etc. Be that as it may, we must do what we consider true, honest and just, and for the rest rely solely on the will of God.”

Arguments and facts, statistical data in the debate are necessary, they say a lot. Otherwise, this is not a controversy, but just chatter.

One cannot speak of a spiritual rebirth where most people do without God, where the priesthood and spiritual traditions are not respected, where the church calendar is bifurcated (Easter and movable holidays, as well as the day of St. George the Victorious and St. Tryphon - in the old, immovable holidays - according to the new style) and the language of worship (everything that is sung is in Church Slavonic, everything that is proclaimed is in Bulgarian).
And I am categorically against your “we must do what we consider true, honest and just” - in Christianity there is not and cannot be pluralism, there cannot be many small truths. In Christianity, there is only one Truth and one and only coordinate system. We must live according to God's commandments, in a Christian way. Otherwise, someone may consider it fair to conduct their own revolutionary court, shoot "enemies of the people" and rob the loot.

My family is very fond of the film "Leopard" by L. Visconti. The protagonist of the film, the prince, sadly says: "We, lions and leopards, will be replaced by jackals and hyenas."
Those who we deserve will come. Therefore, with all due respect to the monarchy and the Bulgarian Tsar, I believe, however, that the issue of the monarchy is resolved only from one, the right side.

16. sunsets : John at number 15
2011-10-10 at 11:44

Dear Joanna!

The striving for the Kingdom of God cannot be based on the rejection of the Kingdom of the earth, just as the striving for the Heavenly Church cannot be based on the rejection of the earthly Church.

If an Orthodox wants to have the power of a tsar over himself, this is normal, since it stems from the Orthodox dogma. If he wants Stalin, liberal democracy, Hitler, Pol Pot or Papa Duvalier, then either he has a confusion of concepts in his mind, or (which is worse, but, alas, it happens) he is not Orthodox at all, but deliberately destroys the Church from within .

One can and should strive to objectively study the personality of Stalin and his era, to understand the tragedy of this man and his contemporaries. It is absurd to deny that Stalin was a great historical figure. But "want Stalin" - this does not fit into the Orthodox worldview, since Stalin was the leader of the atheist regime, and this fact cannot be refuted by anything.

I myself am an idealist and an optimist. Probably, he would not be able to fulfill his duties if he were not such. But these qualities do not interfere with a realistic assessment of reality.

Both in Russia and in Bulgaria, the restoration of the monarchy is very, very far away. However, where the historical dynasty returned to the public life of its country, the distance to the goal, albeit a little, but very significantly, was reduced. I am firmly convinced of this, and I wanted to say this when commenting on the article about. Alexandra, which I liked not because I agree with every word and statement of the author, but because she gives an example of an Orthodox respectful attitude towards Legitimate Sovereigns, an example of the ability to understand the incredible complexity of royal service and the severity of the royal Cross.

As for the rest, one can argue for a long time, citing various arguments, statistics, etc. Be that as it may, we must do what we consider true, honest and fair, and for the rest rely solely on the will of God.

15. John : Zakatov at 14
2011-10-09 at 20:13

Do not be afraid, dear Mr. Zakatov, I put into this poem the gospel meaning - the one that is put into it by the author: “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you” (Mt 6, 33). We must strive to assimilate the divine, grace-filled, eternal life, and then the temporary, earthly one will also be arranged. And so one Orthodox wants a tsar, another Orthodox wants Stalin and is ready to beat his brother in Christ, who wants something else.

I think you know that Uvarov's ingenious formula that determines the paths of Russia's original development “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality.”, relies on the Christian trichotomy spirit-soul-body. This is the only true hierarchy of values, as already mentioned in the first paragraph. But the spiritual is hard, so there is always a temptation to repeat original sin and look for an easy workaround. The spiritual is brought to the fore very often, the politicization of the Orthodox in Russia is “from the same opera”. And they argue, they tear themselves up, and everyone knows what we need, and all the cooks understand the administration of the state, as Ilyich promised. And we need to try to live according to the commandments and, believing in the Providence of God, accept what God will give, including the authorities.

Yes, somewhere on the next branch, those who disagree are immediately identified as Trotskyists, Vlasovites, liberals, etc., enemies of the people. You, of course, are “softer” - you started with a “pessimist”, ended with an “idealist”. I will continue to insist that I am still closest to realism. I do not idealize the situation in Russia in any way, but still it cannot be compared with Bulgaria. I repeat once again that the study of the situation and its description is my job. With blessings, of course. I spend a month and a half a year in Russia. Last year I visited the Pyukhtitsky monastery and Novgorod - Varlaamo-Khutynsky and Nikolo-Vyazhishchsky. The year before last, I was on Valaam and did a big program in Sofia, dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the restoration of the monastery. This year I traveled to Bulgarian monasteries - about two dozen. And very upset. Highly! It's not even about the number of monastics - 120 people throughout the country, in which there are more than five hundred monasteries.

Has anyone seen an empty church in Russia on a Sunday? And here - all the time. And so in everything. Therefore, I am inclined to think that it is you who have got irrepressible optimists as the providers of information. Or people who don't know. As for the questioning on the streets, here, as in our country, it is customary for guests to be told what they need, and not what they think. Therefore, it is impossible to rely on such a survey. If you asked how people feel about Todor Zhivkov, you would hear a lot of good things. Recently I came across a billboard with his portrait and gratitude. Although I do not exclude the possibility that after being disappointed in the next government, the people will again want the Tsar and reconsider their views on the restitution of royal property - it is still better to return your own than to plunder someone else's. Again, His Majesty speaks correctly and writes, I suppose, without errors, unlike ... however, that's another story.

14. sunsets : John at number 13
2011-10-09 at 00:52

Dear Joanna! Poems about. The novels are very good. But I'm afraid you're giving them the wrong meaning. Obviously, by "throne" the author here does not mean the real throne of Orthodox Tsars, but uses this word as a poetic image of power in general.

If a demagogue turns out to be in power - "speaking in a high style", then whatever you call him - even an elected "king", even a president, even a dictator - "the crowd will remain a crowd", because it does not want to turn to God and the paternal order established by Him, and wants to live "according to the many-rebellious human will."

And the true throne of Orthodox tsars cannot be occupied by "anyone", regardless of the possession or non-ownership of the syllable. It is the return of the LEGAL HEREDITARY NATURAL King (or Queen) that will be evidence of the conversion of the people to God, for the earthly Kings in the God-established world order are living images of the Heavenly King of the Kings. This does not mean that the monarchy is a panacea for all ills. But under a monarchy, the people acquire spiritual integrity and the right structure, which is the key to moving in the right direction. And all other systems destroy unity, atomize human society and take it further and further away from God.

You are somewhat idealizing the situation in Russia, but Fr. Alexander and his assistants, probably, somewhat exaggerated the success of the monarchist worldview in Bulgaria. But idealization, in any case, is still better than constant sarcasm, slander, discontent, opposition, looking for specks in the eye of a neighbor, and even more so shameless slander and lies. Please don't take it personally, but unfortunately too many internet contributors engage in this kind of behavior without realizing that "there is no truth in blasphemy, and there is no truth where there is no love."

13. John : 10, Sunsets
2011-10-08 at 23:18

Hieromonk Roman (Matyushin)

Without God, a nation is a crowd,
United by vice
Either blind or stupid
Ile, what is even more terrible, is cruel.

And let anyone ascend the throne,
speaking in a high voice,
The crowd will remain the crowd
Until you turn to God!

12. John : 11, Eric Lampe
2011-10-08 at 23:15

Oh no, what are you, in Russia this is much better! In every sense - both quantitatively and qualitatively. Believing Bulgarians, on the contrary, look at Russia and say: “It will never be like this with us.” It's not just about Soviet upbringing. There are decades under schism and much more. In the last 20 years, the Bulgarian people have twice trusted the communists (now they call themselves socialists) - twice they were in power, but nothing has changed. Now everyone is first and foremost a businessman. And people don't trust anyone. Becomes a jerk.
As for the monarchy, I'm just for it. But we are not yet mature.

11. Eric Lampe : Re: Meeting with the sovereign
2011-10-08 at 22:41

Dear Joanna,

in Russia, the majority of the people are also indifferent to the monarchy and Russian traditions. The latter exist only in the form of museum and scenic folklore.
This should not be surprising, because Bulgaria, like Russia, went through a Soviet upbringing. We will not even try to reveal here what this Soviet upbringing means. I will only note that any, how to put it, lisping, associating with the monarchy, whether here or in Bulgaria, is perplexing to me personally. The monarchy is not the treasure of Schliemann, or some other rare museum exhibit, right?

10. sunsets : John at number 9
2011-10-08 at 16:18

The people always treat all their Sovereigns with love, as children in a family treat their father and mother with love. When a People from a single family turns into a "population" or "mass", then, of course, everyone who is into something much.

9. John : Zakatov for 8
2011-10-08 at 14:49

Dear Mr Zakatov, I'm not overly pessimistic, just realistic. Living among the Bulgarian people, engaging in social activities, and not just "getting information." I will not invite here people who are closely familiar with the issues of His Majesty's premiership and people's love for their sovereign after that. I'm afraid they won't be as delicate as I am. The people loved Tsar Boris, but did not love Tsar Ferdinand. So he always treated kings differently. And it's not about politics, which the common man does not understand.

8. sunsets : John at number 7
2011-10-08 at 12:18

Dear John, you are too pessimistic. Father Alexander described his impressions, and they testify to the deep respect of the Bulgarians for their Tsar. I received similar information from other sources. The attitude towards certain political initiatives of Tsar Simeon is a phenomenon of a completely different order. We may disagree with our father or mother in some way, especially in the sphere of politics, but we do not stop loving and honoring them.

As for superstitions, etc., this is an inevitable consequence of the destruction of the system of spiritual enlightenment after the overthrow of the monarchy. Overcoming these spiritual ailments is possible only by gradual, long-term painstaking work, the leaders and guidelines of which - both in Bulgaria and in Russia - by definition are the Local Orthodox Churches and legitimate natural Dynasties.

7. John : Zakatov for 6
2011-10-07 at 21:34

I am only convinced that where the two main spiritual and historical pillars of people's existence - the Church and the Royal Dynasty - stand firmly and enjoy the moral support of the people (even if not everyone is a practicing parishioner, and not everyone is ready to give their lives for the Tsar and the Monarchy), the process of revival of traditional values ​​has risen to a higher quality level.

What saddens me is that the Bulgarian people, for the most part, are indifferent to the Church and the monarchy. The NDSV (National Movement Simeon Vtori) party has neither popularity nor strength. To be honest, I don’t see any process of reviving traditional values ​​in Bulgaria at all. No one sees him, as they say, point-blank. Bulgaria has surpassed us in occultism, in superstition - yes. If we only consider the revival of traditions to be cooking fish on Nikul den, sheep on Georgov den and heavy drinking on St. Tryphon - on the day when the vine is pruned ... Alas ...

6. sunsets : John at number 4
2011-10-07 at 15:30

Dear Joanna!

Everything is relative. I'm not saying that everything is perfect in Bulgaria. I am not entirely sure that His Majesty Tsar Simeon II did the right thing when he once agreed to personally participate in the political struggle and personally head the government. I am only convinced that where the two main spiritual and historical pillars of people's existence - the Church and the Royal Dynasty - stand firmly and enjoy the moral support of the people (even if not everyone is a practicing parishioner, and not everyone is ready to give their lives for the Tsar and the Monarchy), the process of revival of traditional values ​​has risen to a higher quality level.

5. sunsets : Tsar Simeon II and the Russian Imperial House
2011-10-07 at 15:22

Tsar Simeon II lived for a long time in Madrid, where the Russian Imperial family also lived after the war. The mother of Tsar Simeon, Tsarina Joanna (1907-2000), is the godmother of the Head of the Romanov House, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

Tsar Simeon and members of his family in Madrid on all church holidays met with Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich and members of his family in the Orthodox Church of Saints Andrew and Demetrius on the street. Nicaragua.

In 1967, Tsar Vladimir Kirillovich appointed Tsar Simeon II as his executor in the event of his untimely death.

In 1976, Tsar Simeon was co-ranked by Sovereign Vladimir Kirillovich to the Imperial Order of St. Andrew the First-Called in connection with the marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia (in Orthodoxy, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich).

In 1981, Tsar Simeon and Tsaritsa Margarita were present at the baptism of the son of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duke George Mikhailovich.

The Russian Imperial House and the Bulgarian Royal House are connected not only by official relations, but also by strong friendship.

4. John : 2, sunsets
2011-10-07 at 14:58

But in terms of the return of traditional values, Bulgaria is ahead of us very much precisely because the patriots there rallied around the Lawful Sovereign

Mr. Zakatov, I live in Bulgaria and have been working for 10 years in the field of returning traditional values, so I was amazed at this, probably quite fresh news. I just delayed a little “in the south” - by the sea, and, apparently, missed something very important. When I left, the situation was somewhat different - not the same as you describe it. She was desperate.

It remains only to ask the Dear Editors to find Bulgarian authors to cover this issue. I can take over the translation of the article.

For information about traditional values. There are no more than 5,000 so-called “practicing Orthodox Christians” in Bulgaria today. I don't know how many are in the “overcome” schism – the Innokentiev and the calendar ones.

3. Oblomov : Interesting facts from the life of the Tsar of Bulgaria Boris III
2011-10-07 at 14:55

Very interesting article! Thank you Father Alexander! And I'd love to see the movie...

In addition to what was said about the Bulgarian Tsar Boris III, there are a few more interesting facts from the life of the late Tsar, which, it seems to me, significantly influenced Boris's worldview:

On February 15, 1896, Boris was baptized into Orthodoxy, while the Russian Tsar Nicholas II became his godfather;

On September 1, 1911, during a visit to his godfather Nicholas II, Boris witnesses the assassination of Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, who was shot dead in front of him in the Kyiv opera.

2. sunsets : Great article
2011-10-07 at 14:14

A wonderful, balanced, objective and, at the same time, pleasantly emotional article is an exemplary example of the Orthodox attitude towards the Bearer of the Royal Service.

The Bulgarian experience, of course, is very important for us - both its pluses and its minuses.

Of course, Tsar Simeon II succeeded far from everything. But in terms of the return of traditional values, Bulgaria is ahead of us very much precisely because there the patriots rallied around the Lawful Sovereign, even if they do not agree with him on everything, and do not become like the biblical Ham, do not seek out and do not expose real and imaginary sins and mistakes their Sovereigns.

In Russia, we will move the cause of the national-state revival off the ground only when we learn not only to weep over the past and glorify the deceased Monarchs, but also to honor and support the LIVING Legitimate Successors of the Royal Heritage.

1. John : Re: Meeting with the sovereign
2011-10-07 at 13:41

Once I also left my signature for the return of Tsar Simeon II to Bulgaria. I don't regret it, I think I did the right thing. The inspiration was really great. True, there were also such wise people who said that the king was poor, and he had five children. They say there was a real chance to restore the monarchy. But someone did not pull something and ended with the elections. With the campaign slogan: "Trust me." Believed. Not all, of course. But they chose. Bulgaria is a parliamentary republic, the prime minister in it will be more than ours.

His Majesty makes, no doubt, a strong impression. One word - regal: become, manners, sophistication. I don’t know about the inner world, but everything shows that this is a Western person. It is not customary to recall the results of his premiership. It hurts, and it is not worth condemning the anointed. I also tried not to. And I wrote it because the Bulgarian lesson is very important for us Russians.