Today we will talk about the Tsaritsino palace complex, located in the south of Moscow. According to the official version of history, this palace and park ensemble was founded at the behest of Empress Catherine II in 1776 and was built by two architects with subsequent partial reconstruction until 1796.
This palace complex is considered the largest "pseudo-Gothic" building of the 18th century in Europe and, in general, the only palace complex designed in the "Russian Gothic" style. Let us remember this statement, because it will still be useful to us.
The construction of this complex was never fully completed by November 1796, when the empress died, and the new monarch, Paul I, did not like Tsaritsino, and during his visit to the palace complex in March 1797, he ordered all construction work to be completed. After that, the estate fell into disrepair. By this time, the construction of the palace was covered with a temporary roof, and finishing works were going on in the building, i.e. in the "draft" the main work was completed. Nothing much changed during the reign of the rest of the Romanov Tsars, none of whom showed a serious interest in their "Moscow residence" and finally in 1860 Tsaritsino was transferred to the Department of Appanages and ceased to be the personal property of the imperial family.
Of course, a very dark story of the striking "dislike" of the Romanovs for Tsaritsino and their gravitation to St. Petersburg, allegedly built by an impostor who returned after the "great embassy" instead of the real Peter I to Russia. The historians are clearly not telling us something. Moreover, as usual, I did not find any real projects of this complex, certified by the signatures of the architects, as well as by the seal and visa of the Empress. But historians themselves claim that the last project of rebuilding the palace in 1785 was approved by Catherine II personally. And then, again, it turns out that this complex was built without real construction drawings, like most of the most beautiful buildings in St. Petersburg (this is how the Romanovs called the restored and restored St. Petersburg by them), but only according to the drawings of architects, which are more like a presentation reconstruction of existing buildings.
So maybe there was no new "construction" in Tsaritsino, as well as in St. Petersburg, where restoration, reconstruction and restoration of the buildings of ancient civilization that survived the most after the cataclysm were carried out? Maybe here, too, all efforts were directed at the same? Did you also use elements of destroyed antique buildings for new construction? And maybe this palace complex has nothing to do with the Romanovs at all and went to them "by inheritance" from the tsars of Moscow Tartary, whose attempt to return Moscow was the so-called. "the Pugachev uprising"?
It's just amazing how all this coincides in historical dates. When was the "Pugachev uprising"? Again, according to the official version of history in the years 1773-1775? And already next year the "construction" of Tsaritsino begins. Strange "coincidence" isn't it? But the fact that this palace complex was the only such building in Europe in the style of "Russian Gothic" becomes quite understandable. Was it not this style that was characteristic of Moscow Tartary, which was part of the Great Tartary? And isn't the unexpected "disgrace" of the first "construction architect" Bazhenov connected with the fact that he could not carry out the reconstruction of the building so that it no longer reminds of the past of Moscow Tartary?
But remember, in one of my previous posts, I drew your attention to the fact that on the marble floor of St. Isaac's Cathedral, which seems to be considered a Christian temple, there are characteristic solar images and a Vedic swastika ornament. Exactly the same images are on the floor in the building of the Parisian Pantheon, "shaded" by Foucault's pendulum. At the same time, the Parisian Pantheon was also built originally as if it were a Catholic church. Surprisingly, in two halls of the Tsaritsino palace complex, I found exactly the same solar signs and the same swastika organ, which is present on the ruins of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek, and on the mosaics of many "Roman villas" located from Britain to the Middle East. Only this swastika ornament is for some reason called "Greek" by historians. But the very same historians claim that Tsaritsino was obviously not built by the Greeks or the Romans.
Pay attention to the floor in the Tauride Hall of the Tsaritsino complex. Here you can clearly see the solar image in the center of the hall, as well as the characteristic swastika ornament along the edges along its entire perimeter.
And on the floor in the Catherine Hall, we see the same thing. Do you really believe that in the palace of Orthodox Russian emperors all these characteristic antique Vedic symbols were created by their order? But I can't believe it. All this indicates that at least the foundations of these buildings were clearly built long before the Romanovs. And not only in Tsaritsino, but also in other places where there are similar symbols. But, for example, in the same St. Isaac's Cathedral, we see characteristic architectural elements of load-bearing structures made of granite, which are absent here. But on the other hand, it is from granite stone that many paths are laid out on the territory of the complex, which can serve to support the version about that. that the original palace and architectural complex, nevertheless, was built before the Romanovs. But all the current brick buildings are the result of the activity of an already "inter-flood" civilization. which existed until the middle of the 19th century, which used the legacy of a previous civilization.
Here, look at this photo, you can see very clearly that the building has a characteristic granite base with a semi-basement (half-buried soil?) Floor. This foundation is what has been preserved from the former antique building, as well as the antique columns. But the laying of the walls on top of this base is already made of brick. Perhaps this is the result of the "construction" of the building already under the Romanovs, which fully corresponds to the capabilities of the technologies of the "inter-flood" civilization.
And even the abundance of later and really appeared already under the Romanovs Masonic symbols on the facades and bas-reliefs of buildings in St. Petersburg are not able to hide their true Vedic and antique past. So, what else is interesting. The first architect to whom the official version attributes the construction of this palace complex was also a Freemason. It is possible that his task was precisely the implementation of a similar "disguise" of the buildings of the ancient Vedic civilization with Masonic symbols in Tsaritsino. Until now, official historians use this symbolism as evidence that allegedly Peter was built by the Romanovs, but at the same time they completely ignore the more ancient Vedic symbolism.
But apparently in Tsaritsino this "disguise" was unsuccessful. On February 6, 1785, after the Empress visited the "construction site", her decree appeared "On the dismantling of the main building in the village of Tsaritsyno to the ground and on the production according to the plan newly composed by the architect Kazakov." The historians themselves admit that this is the rarest case when the “rebuilt and roofed palace building” was suddenly destroyed “to the ground”. Probably, Bazhenov limited himself only to the restoration of an older building and the replacement of Vedic bas-reliefs with modern ones, including Masonic ones.However, the external appearance of the building, nevertheless, betrayed its true builders. But, even after the rebuilding of the building by Bazhenov's student, the architect Kazakov, he could not do anything with the granite floor, because during the time of the "intersludge civilization" that existed after the ancient times, many unique technologies for processing marble and granite were already lost.
Isn't that why the Romanovs have “grown cold” towards this “Moscow residence” and abandoned the rights to own it? After all, sooner or later, someone began to ask similar questions: where did the Vedic symbols come from in the palace of the Russian empress? Of course, this is only a version, but it somehow logically explains the "appearance" in the marble floor of two halls of the palace, which belonged to Orthodox Russian emperors, of characteristic Vedic antique symbolism, as well as their amazing "weakness" for various antique architectural styles, elements of which are actively used during "construction".