2025 Issue №4

Using the example of Randal MacDonnell, Earl and Marquess of Antrim, the article ex­amines the specific features of the attitude of the English political establishment during the period of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate toward representatives of the Irish Catholic community. During the years of the First Civil War, this aristocrat was an ardent supporter of the monarchy and provided armed assistance to Charles I in his struggle against the Scot­tish Covenanters. He later sharply changed sides and began to support Cromwell during his campaign in Ireland. The study characterizes the reasons for Sir Randal’s defection to the side of the “enemies of Catholicism,” as well as the services he rendered to the new regime. In ad­dition, the article identifies the circle of patrons of the Catholic lord and analyzes the reasons why he ultimately failed to fully integrate into the established system of state power. The me­thodological framework of the study includes both general scientific methods of inquiry (his­torical-genetic, problem-chronological, historical-comparative, and methods of analysis and synthesis) and microhistorical analysis.

The article examines the problem of representing the history and culture of Old Believers in the journalistic writings of the recognized classics of anarchist thought—M. A. Bakunin, P. A. Kropotkin and L. N. Tolstoy. It is shown that representatives of the Russian anar­chist movement re­garded Old Believers as a potential support in the struggle against the tsar­ist government. According to the views of the revolutionaries, the mentality of Old Believers shared numerous similarities with the ethics of Russian socialists. Despite many fundamental ideological differ­ences, both groups gravitated toward collectivism, welcomed egalitarianism in social life, and demonstrated a pronounced distrust of representatives of the ruling authori­ties. It is noted that on a number of issues, anarchists’ views on Old Belief differed little from the perception of this religious movement held by thinkers of a state-protective orientation. In particular, both camps of theorists sought to identify in Old Belief a “natural” inclination toward anti-monarchical protest, revolutionary radicalism, and even readiness for armed re­bellion.

The views of representatives of monarchist circles within Russian society toward the last Russian emperor during the years of the First World War are examined. The study concludes that two models of monarchists’ attitudes toward Nicholas II during the specified period can be identified. The apologetic model was based on monarchists’ perception of the emperor’s personal virtues, including his loyalty to duty. Among the prominent apologists of the mon­arch was A. I. Dubrovin, the founder of the All-Russian Dubrovin Union of the Russian Peo­ple, who expressed support for the emperor in the newspaper Russkoe znamya up to the Feb­ruary Revolution. The case described in the article involving an appeal to the authorities call­ing for the restoration of Nicholas II to the throne, as well as letters from representatives of various social strata addressed to the former tsar, demonstrates that even after his abdication, a sacralized perception of his figure persisted in society. The cited examples indicate the pres­ence of loyalist sentiments within monarchist circles during the First World War, which did not significantly change under the influence of external or internal political circumstances. In this regard, this model of perception of the emperor may conditionally be described as static. The opposing model of perception of the monarch is characterized by a negative dynamic in attitudes toward him. Within this segment of monarchist circles, Nicholas II was regarded as an official held responsible for military failures and internal problems in the country. Dissa­tisfaction on the part of this group with the emperor’s actions and with the situation in the state ultimately found expression in the participation of V. V. Shulgin and A. I. Guchkov in organizing the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne.

In the early 1930s, the Republic of Estonia faced serious economic problems, and the country’s political forces proved unable to cope with the challenges of the crisis period. The flaws of the political system were embedded at the constitutional level, which forced the par­liament to initiate the process of drafting amendments to the country’s fundamental law. In 1932—1933, three nationwide referenda were held: two constitutional drafts prepared by the parliament were deemed unsatisfactory by the population, after which preference was given to an extra-parliamentary draft of amendments, which ultimately proved fatal for democracy in the country. Against the backdrop of the upcoming presidential elections, Konstantin P?ts, temporarily acting as president under the new constitution, carried out a coup d'?tat. This article examines all three constitutional drafts submitted to general referendums. The process of drafting amendments in each case is analyzed, the nature of the proposed changes is deter­mined, and the consequences of each referendum are assessed. According to the authors, the amendments submitted in the first referendum were more competent and well-considered than those presented in the third referendum, and the failure of the original amendments re­sulted from the active propaganda of certain actors rather than from the nature of the amend­ments themselves. Moreover, the article argues that the delay in resolving the constitutional issue ultimately led to irreversible consequences, including a military coup and the establish­ment of P?ts’ personal dictatorship.

The article analyzes regional memory politics in the Republic of Ingushetia using the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the deportation of the Ingush people and the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Ingush statehood as case studies. Employing an actor-oriented approach based on the works of M. Bernhard and J. Kubik, along with discourse analysis, the author examines how various actors shape and promote competing narratives of the past. The study demonstrates that the narrative of the 1944 deportation consolidates In­gush society, enabling regional actors to sustain a “victimhood” discourse and to preserve the memory of trauma through discursive practices and other channels, including education and memorial infrastructure. By contrast, the memory of Ingush statehood is supported by both regional and federal actors. This narrative excludes references to tragic events and focuses on the region’s socio-economic well-being and its integration into Russia. The celebration of the anniversary of Ingush statehood is embedded within the logic of the nationwide narrative and is reinforced through the organization of mass cultural events aimed at promoting the region, as well as through the construction of monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War. It is shown that, although a “consolidated” model of memory is being formed in the republic, its substantive content and institutional environment vary depending on the configuration and strategies of the actors involved.