The Romanovs Under House Arrest: A Memoir

Yours Truly received a lovely Christmas (N.S.) gift which I’d like to tell you about.

It’s titled The Romanovs Under House Arrest: From the 1917 Diary of a Palace Priest.

Rather than write about it, I’d like to read directly from the Introduction, “The Historical Setting” by Marilyn Swezey. It’s elegant and to the point; I appreciate it simply because it sets the record straight in regards to the pre-Great War era.

You know the liberal drill: Tsar bad/Leftists good. It’s all hogwash. Anyway, without any further ado, here is the video:



As always, your comments, criticisms and witticisms are mucho appreciado.


  1. Thanks for this! The book has been on my wishlist for the longest time. This made me think that I should indulge in a post-Nativity purchase for myself!

  2. James Kowalski says

    There you go again with your vile sophistry justifying your murderous, racist czars and emperors and despots as some kind of saints.

    • Antiochene Son says

      They are saints.

      If this upsets you, you should take a serious look at where you intend to spend eternity. Imagine how sad you will be if you have to share heaven with the Romanovs, how hellish heaven will be for you. There is no room for hate.

      • George Michalopulos says

        As a devoted student of history, I’ve come to be more cognizant of historiography and revisionism. The old cliche that history is written by the winners is largely true.

        Hence, my desire to read verbatim the preface from this book. Mrs Swezey lays out the facts of Russia’s Silver Age with remarkable clarity.

        James: Nicholas was not perfect by any means but neither were any of the Old Testame Testament worthies we venerate today. The Bible and thus hagiography are written from God’s view, not ours.

      • Lemon Contovlitas says

        Whya re you in denial? Putin openly flaunts that Tzarism, Orthodoxy and Communism are the same thing! His grandfather was STalin’s cook and taster when Stalin offed 275,000 Greeks in 1937 Siberia. Perhaps they cooked and ate them.

        • Antiochene Son says

          What does Putin have to do with the Romanovs?

          Maybe Putin sees the Tsars, Orthodoxy, and Communism all as part of the Russian story. Maybe Russians take reality for what it is. The idea of submitting to authority is obviously deeply ingrained in the Russian psyche, and maybe many Russians like it that way. That level of social cohesion is probably in large part why Russia has not fallen to the globo-homo.

          This is much unlike my soy-based fellow Americans, who wring their hands and claw their ears when they learn that bad things happened in our country’s history, and then resolve we must all flagellate ourselves to appease the gods of leftism.

          There is something wrong with a people that eradicates its own history. Not only that, through immigration and demographic changes, we are eradicating our future as well.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Pithy. And to the point. We in the West are very close to a collective nervous breakdown, caused by our obeisance to the gods of Cultural Marxism. Every now and then we can have a good laugh, like the latest soy-boy Gillette commercial. Unfortunately, this is only transitory in that it releases some steam. In the meantime, the feminazi/soy-boy/sodomite cultural collective brainwashing continues.

            The “snap” will come when enough working/salaried male breadwinners lose their jobs and then their wives, families and homes. Then when these men have nothing left to lose –watch out.

            • “We in the West are very close to a collective nervous breakdown, caused by our obeisance to the gods of Cultural Marxism. ”

              I think there are two poles to this madness. On the other pole are neocons, free market worshipers, Rushbots, exceptionalists, prosperity Gospel freaks, Objectivists etc, etc 😉

              It takes two to the tango.

          • Fr. George Washburn says

            Hello friends:

            I would like to comment on the January 17 post of Antiochene Son, for all I know perhaps someone I have met and like around the Archdiocese.

            First, as to the appeasement of leftist exponents of Rightthink, I could hardly agree with him more.

            As to the sttatement “There is something wrong with a people that eradicates it’s own history” some qualified agreement. But in the end I don’t like the fact that he seems to be thinking and speaking in secularist terms.

            I would prefer to say “There is something spiritually doomed in a people that refuses to recognize, name and repent of its sins.” And repentance is something neither the secular media nor politicians can understand, let alone discuss or implement. Make laws, seize tax money, distribute it to the descendants of the original victims of emslavement and ethnic cleansings? Yeah, they know how to do it … but not recognize how doomed the tactic is because it leaves the descendants of both victims and oppressors spiritually bankrupt and estranged from one another.

            Whatever one sows will be reaped? A house divided against itself can’t stand? I recall somebody saying that once upon a time, but isn’t mythic America, the Chosen People of the New World, exempt ?


            Fr. G

            • Michael Bauman says

              Father, good comment. I will only add that the type of iconoclasm that Antiochean Son referring too is a perfectly secular way to avoid repentance and it shares many of the same defects as the heresy of Iconoclasm.

              No matter what we do, we cannot eradicate or disown our shared history, it is literally part of our DNA as well as our consciousness. Simply wishing it away does nothing but bury it and eventually exacerbates the deficiencies.

              The seems to be no mechanism for national repentance any more. We are too fragmented and individualized. But, the Church could address some of these abiding sins if she chose but the institutional Church sits too lightly on the surface of the US culture floating along fundamentally refusing to actually do the work of putting down roots.

              That does not bode well as the parable of the sower reminds us.

  3. George Michalopulos says

    James, how were they racists?

    • George re the Tsar abd tsarina, i grew up facinated by this history when all that was ever stated was that the Tsar was a complete fool with no renewing fractured governing a hell hall
      Now with rhe decide of USSR and how putting on a top had and pretend to be a King of Great Britain is, was, about as feasable for Russia as Gorbachev doing same.
      In addition, compared to other european society Russia was forging ahead in all areas especially after 1906. Yes there were problems, all countries every where have those. But has anyone taken a look at the horrendous Poverty in early 20the uk, and rhe fact that in wwi, not to mention two, germans were shocked at the often malnourished British prisoners.
      A friend in Moscow recently showed me the celebratory meal menu for his grandfather ‘ s retirement from a humble clerical post and gift of gold watch in 1912 and expressed amazing at this largesse etc compared ro Soviet times.
      I would recommend people read Dominic Lieven’s Nicholas ii. For a balanced view and understanding that it is impossible to be governing alone for year after year and that actually it was for once listening to the’ liberal voices’ in 1914 pro Serb and pro great Britain, rather than the conservatives, that led to disaster.
      As to.tsar as a person, he and his family were not sainted as rulers but as Passion bearers, nor as martyrs. Yes in the ultimate sense they were killed as an Orthodox ruling family but they were not persecuted directly for their faith and were allowed, even if limited, ro worship and receive COMNUNION and have their Icons. It was the way and matter of their death.