Murder of the Imperial Family 17 July 1918

[Blog Real]

The British Royal Family could also have done more. The Empress was the great-grandson of Queen Victoria. But maybe it was a difficult assignment. The King of Spain was the only one who tried to help the Romanovs, I think.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by iceflower

.

A religious procession in memory of the Imperial Family was held from the Church of All Saints in Yekaterinburg to the Ganina Yama Monastery in the Sverdlovsk Region today, July 17. Princess Olga Nikolaevna Kulikovskaya-Romanova participated:



** belga gallery **

Why does not Maria Vladmirovna and her son not participate in these events?

[Queen Claude]

My understanding is that the IF was still in Tsarskoye Selo near Saint Petersburg when the Provisional Government of Russia reached out to the British government regarding the IF being given asylum in the UK. It seems like the British PTB who did agree were not strongly in favor and that when the King, his Private Secretary and others voiced their objections then the offer was rescinded.

At the time this was going on, Russia and Germany were at war so I would not expect the Kaiser to be offering asylum to the deposed Tsar and his family. The Kaiser did make the effort to get the IF out of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution (the Russians withdrew from the war) but it was not a top priority for the German politicians and furthermore they are now dealing with the Bolsheviks who have a different attitude about the IF.

My take is that if the Brits had not rescinded the offer, and assuming that the IF would/could have left immediately (Spring 1917), then they would have been spared. However George V, Stamfordham and others had sound reasoning for opposing the IF being given asylum. My guess is that the hope was that another country would accept the IF but then the Bolshevik Revolution happened and that changed everything.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

My understanding is that the IF was still in Tsarskoye Selo near Saint Petersburg when the Provisional Government of Russia reached out to the British government regarding the IF being given asylum in the UK. It seems like the British PTB who did agree were not strongly in favor and that when the King, his Private Secretary and others voiced their objections then the offer was rescinded.

At the time this was going on, Russia and Germany were at war so I would not expect the Kaiser to be offering asylum to the deposed Tsar and his family. The Kaiser did make the effort to get the IF out of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution (the Russians withdrew from the war) but it was not a top priority for the German politicians and furthermore they are now dealing with the Bolsheviks who have a different attitude about the IF.

My take is that if the Brits had not rescinded the offer, and assuming that the IF would/could have left immediately (Spring 1917), then they would have been spared. However George V, Stamfordham and others had sound reasoning for opposing the IF being given asylum. My guess is that the hope was that another country would accept the IF but then the Bolshevik Revolution happened and that changed everything.

I wonder what the “ sound reasoning “ for opposing the IF being given asylum would be. Again, the Tsar’s mother and his sister were granted asylum in the UK. Why wouldn’t the Brits take at least Alix and the children ?

[Denville]

I don't suppose Alix was very popular, due to the fact that she had a lot of influence on Nicolas and was as right wing as him. Its one thing to rescue them on humanitarian grounds but it seems like Spain or Swtizerland were the only places that would be willing to give them a permanent home.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Ernie didn't have enough international clout. If blame is to be attached to King George then why not to the Kaiser? He, after all was Alexandra's first cousin. He could possibly have made the safety of the Tsarina and her children a priority during the Brest-Litovsk treaty negotiations early in 1918. It's known that German authorities allowed Lenin to enter Russia by providing him with safe passage through Germany. They could have organised transport for Alexandra and her children to a safe neutral Scandinavian country.

He tried. Alexandra said she would never take help from him. Wilhelm was not the monster that some people think. He would have rescued them and Ella, especially, Ella. Kerensky could have worked out a way for them to go to England, actually they were working on it, when George V got cold feet, and was more concerned about his survival and his monarchy. And Lenin was not in favor of killing the children. The Ural Soviet was. The whole problem, was that no one had complete control of anything and chaos reigned.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I wonder what the “ sound reasoning “ for opposing the IF being given asylum would be. Again, the Tsar’s mother and his sister were granted asylum in the UK. Why wouldn’t the Brits take at least Alix and the children ?

The sound reasoning was that the Tsar was not a popular figure in Britain and concurrent with the government and King dealing with whether or not to grant asylum to the Tsar and his family, George V was also dealing with extreme anti-German sentiment and the royal family's perceived ties to Germany.

Maria Feodorovna/Dagmar and the other family members were rescued and granted asylum in the UK in 1919, two years after the rescinded offer of asylum to the IF. By then the war had ended, the Bolshevik Revolution happened and its attendant atrocities were known, and in 1919 the British monarchy, with its new moniker the House of Windsor, was on a more stable footing.

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

The British Royal Family could also have done more. The Empress was the great-grandson of Queen Victoria. But maybe it was a difficult assignment. The King of Spain was the only one who tried to help the Romanovs, I think.

The Queen of Spain was Victoria Eugenie. She was related to Alexandra. Did Victoria Eugenie get involved with Alfonso's attempts?

[Curryong]

Queen Ena was Alexandra's first cousin. I would imagine that her distress over their possible fate was a prime mover in King Alfonzo's offer of asylum. They did not have a happy marriage but I still think they would have been of one mind on this.

[Roslyn]

I came across an interesting account of the decision to not rescue the Nicholas and Alexandra and their family. It is hearsay but I find it interesting, nevertheless. Apparently the by now Duke of Windsor recounted to Gore Vidal an incident he witnessed at breakfast with his parents one day in 1917. An ADC came in and handed George V a note. He read it then handed the note to Mary. Mary read it and said "No", and George handed it back to the ADC and said, "No". Later that day Edward had asked his father about the note and the explanation given, as recounted to Vidal, was that "his father’s government was ready to send a battle ship to rescue the former Tsar and his family, but she didn’t think it would be good for them to have their Russian relatives in Britain. The Duke ended the story by blasély mentioning his parents’ decision left no choice for the Bolsheviks but to shoot them all."
://www.royalfoibles.com/the-british-queen-partially-to-blame-for-the-murder-of-tsar-nicholas-ll-and-his-family/

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I came across an interesting account of the decision to not rescue the Nicholas and Alexandra and their family. It is hearsay but I find it interesting, nevertheless. Apparently the by now Duke of Windsor recounted to Gore Vidal an incident he witnessed at breakfast with his parents one day in 1917. An ADC came in and handed George V a note. He read it then handed the note to Mary. Mary read it and said "No", and George handed it back to the ADC and said, "No". Later that day Edward had asked his father about the note and the explanation given, as recounted to Vidal, was that "his father’s government was ready to send a battle ship to rescue the former Tsar and his family, but she didn’t think it would be good for them to have their Russian relatives in Britain. The Duke ended the story by blasély mentioning his parents’ decision left no choice for the Bolsheviks but to shoot them all."
://www.royalfoibles.com/the-british-queen-partially-to-blame-for-the-murder-of-tsar-nicholas-ll-and-his-family/

why would it leave "no choice for the Bolsheviks but to shoot them?"

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I came across an interesting account of the decision to not rescue the Nicholas and Alexandra and their family. It is hearsay but I find it interesting, nevertheless. Apparently the by now Duke of Windsor recounted to Gore Vidal an incident he witnessed at breakfast with his parents one day in 1917. An ADC came in and handed George V a note. He read it then handed the note to Mary. Mary read it and said "No", and George handed it back to the ADC and said, "No". Later that day Edward had asked his father about the note and the explanation given, as recounted to Vidal, was that "his father’s government was ready to send a battle ship to rescue the former Tsar and his family, but she didn’t think it would be good for them to have their Russian relatives in Britain. The Duke ended the story by blasély mentioning his parents’ decision left no choice for the Bolsheviks but to shoot them all."
://www.royalfoibles.com/the-british-queen-partially-to-blame-for-the-murder-of-tsar-nicholas-ll-and-his-family/

If the government had decided to rescue the Tsar, wouldn’t the King be required as a constitutional monarch to follow the advice of his ministers ?

What I find odd about this and other similar versions of the story is that they seem to imply that George V actually governed the country and had a final say in foreign affairs or military operations, which was definitely no longer the case in the UK in 1917. I don’t dispute that George V may have been personally opposed to granting asylum to the Tsar , but , even if he had expressed his views in private to the prime minister, it would have been ultimately the government’s call to organize a rescue operation or not.

I also tend to think that the assumption that the Tsar’s presence in Britain would be a risk to the British monarchy is overblown. First, it is unclear how long the Tsar would stay in Britain. Most likely in my opinion he would have moved eventually to a neutral third country. Second there was no credible domestic threat to the monarchy in the UK and even less so after victory in World War I and the introduction of universal suffrage following the war. Of all European countries at the time, the UK ( excluding Ireland of course) was one of the least likely to experience revolution or even political upheaval. I don’t think the Tsar’s presence in the country would have changed that in any significant way.

Clearly the presence of the Tsar and his family in the country would put the UK in conflict with the new Soviet regime in Russia , but the Soviets were not a direct threat to the British Empire ( yet) at that time and, in any case, the British government was supporting the counter-revolutionary White Army anyway, so I don’t think there was too much concern in London about antagonizing the Soviets.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

If the government had decided to rescue the Tsar, wouldn’t the King be required as a constitutional monarch to follow the advice of his ministers ?

What I find odd about this and other similar versions of the story is that they seem to imply that George V actually governed the country and had a final say in foreign affairs or military operations, which was definitely no longer the case in the UK in 1917. I don’t dispute that George V may have been personally opposed to granting asylum to the Tsar , but , even if he had expressed his views in private to the prime minister, it would have been ultimately the government’s call to organize a rescue operation or not.

I also tend to think that the assumption that the Tsar’s presence in Britain would be a risk to the British monarchy is overblown. First, it is unclear how long the Tsar would stay in Britain. Most likely in my opinion he would have moved eventually to a neutral third country. Second there was no credible domestic threat to the monarchy in the UK and even less so after victory in World War I and the introduction of universal suffrage following the war. Of all European countries at the time, the UK ( excluding Ireland of course) was one of the least likely to experience revolution or even political upheaval. I don’t think the Tsar’s presence in the country would have changed that in any significant way.

Clearly the presence of the Tsar and his family in the country would put the UK in conflict with the new Soviet regime in Russia , but the Soviets were not a direct threat to the British Empire ( yet) at that time and, in any case, the British government was supporting the counter-revolutionary White Army anyway, so I don’t think there was too much concern in London about antagonizing the Soviets.

The upper story is nonsense. The British Government was not keen on rescuing them at all.\, but they did respect their king He wasn't running things as you say, but he could stop something they might have been doing for him.

[CyrilVladisla]

Could the United States have offered refuge to Nicholas II's family?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Could the United States have offered refuge to Nicholas II's family?

I don't think that possibility was ever discussed or even considered, but it is an intriguing question.

[CyrilVladisla]

Do you think that if a member of the Imperial Family such as Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaeivich (1856-1929) had been able to take refuge in the United States, the family of Nicholas II might have been able to go to the States?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Do you think that if a member of the Imperial Family such as Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaeivich (1856-1929) had been able to take refuge in the United States, the family of Nicholas II might have been able to go to the States?

If they had financial resources to keep them.. possibly. But a lot of countries did not want to take in the Tsar because his policies and rule had made him so much disapproved of....

[lucien]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Do you think that if a member of the Imperial Family such as Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaeivich (1856-1929) had been able to take refuge in the United States, the family of Nicholas II might have been able to go to the States?

No.It didn't even come up in their minds,the US was a global non entity pre- WW I,and NO,that would never be their port of call in any circumstance.

[An Ard Ri]

I wonder if Canada being a British dominion at the time was ever an option?

[lucien]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

I wonder if Canada being a British dominion at the time was ever an option?

Never.

Only later,much later,when the Grandduchess Olga Alexandrovna,Mrs.Kulikovski,took refuge there in 1948.
Not before.