Romanov Rescue 1917-1919: Action and Inaction

[tiaraprin]

It does have to do with that thissal. King George V wanted to help his cousin the Tsar but if he offered him asylum in England, the country would have went into an uproar. The Tsarina was a German Princess who was a first cousin to George V and the Kaiser. At a time when the British Royals Anglicized their name, to bring the Tsar and his German ties and "crimes" against humanity to England, George V could very well have lost his throne too. According to Kenneth Rose, George V never forgave himself for letting the Tsar and his family go to their deaths. That is why he put himself out to rescue Prince Philip's family when Philip's father was about to face a firing squad. He didn't want anymore blood on his hands. (Philip's mother, Princess Alice of Greece, nee Princess Alice of Battenberg was his cousin also.)

 

[Alicky]

I agree. I think, given the situation, it's pretty conclusive that the Romanovs could have never went to Germany for asylum. And as far as Britain, Nicholas and the Romanovs were not liked by the public over there, Nicholas was demonized in the press as a tyrant(they were pretty much right). Had George brought him over, it would have caused an uproar and George would have been looked at as a traitor, who knows what that could have cost his throne, if not his throne period. He also didn't know Nicholas's ultimate fate in Russia. He did the best he could with the information he had at the time.

Besides, Alix had plenty of other relatives that could've taken them in too. George is not to blame.

 

[Blanch]

No doubt it is very sad story.

Anyway, I've always wanted to know why exactly the didn't leave Russia (I mean, of course, before the arrest).

I don't know well the reason why Goerge V didn't help them. I think I read somewhere in this forum that he couldn't, but I don't remember the explanation. I'm sure some of you must know the whole story of it.

What I did read in a book is that the king of Spain at that time, Alfonso XIII, had the intention of help the Romanovs to leave Russia, because his wife, Victoria Eugenia de Battenberg (Ena) was Alix's cousin (they were both granddaughters of the queen Victoria), and they were worried about the imperial family.

I've just caught the book and it says that when the revolution broke out in May 1917, Alfonso XIII called his ministers, and tried to contact with his Brtish colleagues to negotiate with the sovietic provisional government the leaving of the tsar and his family through Finland and Sweden. Weeks passed without receiving an answer, and so the king of Spain worked to free them directly with the kings of Sweden and Norway. He offered them to charter a boat in a harbor of the north to board the Russian royal family. To this lack of communication another aggravating circumstance was added: George V wrote that the English government or any other government, who wanted to intervene in favor with the tsar and his family, couldn't do it without an application of the tsar expressing his desire for leaving the country, something that Nicholas wasn't willing to do.


Is that the real reason why the Romanov family didn't receive help to leave Russia?

 

[Lady Jennifer]

I think a lot of the monarchs wanted to help the Romanovs (since many were related to each other), but their advisors suggested it may not be the best thing. If I'm not mistaken, the issue with the Brit. royals not helping was due to the fact of the Revolution in Russia & they didn't want to bring the idea to the UK. And if they helped the Romanovs that could help stir anti-monarchy feelings in the UK (since Alexandra was German).

 

[Katya]

The British king (George VI I think) definitely had the blood of the Romanovs on his hands. He, along with his advisers, did not want the family to come to England, and the only reason he ended up helping Maria Feodorovna was because his mother (Maria's sister) threw a fit when he said he wouldn't send a ship to get the Dowager Empress out of Russia.

 

[Furienna]

Wow... At least, Alexandra (the Brittish queen) made sure Dagmar got out of there.

 

[morhange]

The British king (George VI I think) definitely had the blood of the Romanovs on his hands. He, along with his advisers, did not want the family to come to England, and the only reason he ended up helping Maria Feodorovna was because his mother (Maria's sister) threw a fit when he said he wouldn't send a ship to get the Dowager Empress out of Russia.

Actually, the Prime Minister (Lloyd George, I think) was all for the Romanovs coming to England, it was King George who didn't want them to come. He felt that inviting the deposed emperor to England would compromising his own position as monarch.

 

[Furienna]

What a way to treat your cousin...

 

[EmpressRouge]

There were fears that Britain's (German) monarchy would have been overthrown too if King George let his cousins into the country. Everything is clear in hindersight, and he probably never imagined Nicholas and Alexandra and family would suffer such a tragic fate. That's why Britain was so quick to send a ship to rescue Prince Andrew of Greece and family, the memory of Nicholas and Alexandra still haunting him. And as the family left so hastily, a crate was used as a crib for a little baby named Philip, who would one day marry the king's granddaughter.

 

[ortino]

I don't care- what the King did was bad....family first in my opinion and by that time Russia was pretty much in terms of welfare..the British people would have accepted a deposed Russian Sovereign (GD Michael anyone? ps:-- he had Nina and Xenia..)

 

[lucien]

Actually, the Prime Minister (Lloyd George, I think) was all for the Romanovs coming to England, it was King George who didn't want them to come. He felt that inviting the deposed emperor to England would compromising his own position as monarch.

Not George V by himself,his wife,Mary,said no.According to the memoirs/and an interview of/with the late Duke of Windsor,when that message/request arrived one morning during breakfast,it was given to the King first,who read it,and passed it on to his wife without comment,she immediatly said;"No".

As the late Duke inquired what that was all about,he was told Nicky had requested asylum in the UK.

YouTube - God Save the Tsar

 

[Furienna]

Why did Mary do that? :O

 

[lucien]

Why did Mary do that? :O

Whatever reason that scheming woman had,I 've always blamed her,indirectly, for the murder of Nicky & Alix and their children.
Mary was certainly no saint.George hardly had a say,he was to weak/meek to oppose her.The only thing he was
good at was terrorising his own children and raising,or rather had them lovelessly raised,to insecure persons.But I do not
wish to delute this wonderfull thread by that woman.

 

[Furienna]

Okay... I knew Mary looked strict and so, but... wow...

 

[ysbel]

The British king (George VI I think) definitely had the blood of the Romanovs on his hands. He, along with his advisers, did not want the family to come to England, and the only reason he ended up helping Maria Feodorovna was because his mother (Maria's sister) threw a fit when he said he wouldn't send a ship to get the Dowager Empress out of Russia.

You have to understand that George V and Nicholas II were currently fighting their own first cousin Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and George V was also being accused of being too German. So World War I was testing family loyalty to the extremes and the Royal Families were put to the test to choose between their countries and their families.

The unfortunate side effect of all of this was that Marie Feodorovna was sent to live with her nephew Christian X of Denmark and the arrangements were uncomfortable for all. Marie, used to being an Empress and the top lady in a large land was too grand and imposing for the small Danish court and Christian X having been King for a good 10 years was used to having things his way and he wasn't pleased at having to put himself out for his bossy little aunt.

It was simply unbearable for all until Alexandra arranged for Marie to move to Hvidore away from the King's court.

.

 

[Russophile]

I don't care- what the King did was bad...

Ortino, George had no idea they (The Bolsheviks) would actually shoot them! This is why he sent the battleship for Xenia, Sandro and Maria Feoderovna et. all.

I know. But it was ninety years ago anyway, so I don't think it matters so much anymore.

It does have significance because there are still 2 bodies missing though they say that they have found them, the tests are becoming inconclusive and the rumors abound!

 

[lexi4]

Interesting topic.
However, in my experience, I have found that discussions about plots to rescue the Imperial Family abound, it is difficult to find documentation. If this is a topic about discussions, that is one thing. But if it is about historical facts, that is another matter entirely. Authors have written about the topic and that could be part of this discussion. I think (and this is my opinion only) one of the reasons this is such a difficult topic to pin down is because so many of the documents are either classified or have been destroyed if anything was ever written at all
Here is an article written in 2006 about a plot. How factual it is, I don't know.

British spies in plot to save tsar - Times Online

I am not all to sure where the Imperial Family would have gone if they did escape. Initially they were given asylum in England, but that was later denied. I'd have to do some research to put the particulars together on that.
There have been things written, which make for fun discussion, but have mostly been discredited.

It will be interesting to see where this discussion goes.

 

[Marengo]

Well, I have a book at home called 'plots to rescue the tsar', haven't read it yet but I suppose it is documentated enough.

I agree that there might not be too much discussion coming from this but what I find even more interesting is the role the various monarchs/cousins of Nicholas and Alexandra played in this. Esp. George V's role was rather dubious; I believe in the end it was only Alfonso XIII of Spain who showed his hospitality, though too late.

 

[COUNTESS]

George V loved his crown more than his cousins. Now, George was a very decent man, and, in his defense, he may not have envisioned them being murdered, but it had to cross his mind. He was no scholar, but not an idiot, either. He knew that autocratic rulers, were not welcome in Britain. The decision was his. He was afraid. Willy, of course, could not help them and, yes, Alfonso XIII, did reach out, but it was too late.

Lexi, you are right, there are all kindsw of unsubstiated plots of rescue, but none with real authenticity.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And of course, George feared for his position. I've no doubt that had he accepted Nicholas, Britain would be a republic and probably would have had a period of extremist rule.

 

[Russophile]

And of course, George feared for his position. I've no doubt that had he accepted Nicholas, Britain would be a republic and probably would have had a period of extremist rule.

Would have been interesting if that would have happened.
I'm still reading Fate of the Romanov's by Penny Wilson and Greg King and, gee what a co-inky-dinky, am at the part where plots to rescue abound. Just went through the one where the message was smuggled to the family through the fresh eggs and milk and ended up in the Cheka's hands.
I think the best method (and this is hindsight which, of course tends to run 20/20) would have been to set up a bunch of troops to storm the place when the guarding was weakest first by setting up a distraction, running in, taking them and running out with reliable transportation. This whole thing of people (like Helen of Serbia) walking up to the front door, demanding to speak to the Tsar and having all sorts of money and letters on their persons was dumb, Dumb, DUMB!

 

[COUNTESS]

And of course, George feared for his position. I've no doubt that had he accepted Nicholas, Britain would be a republic and probably would have had a period of extremist rule.

We will never know, will we. It is just a guess. And, why extremist rule?

 

[lexi4]

Would that be Shay McNeal's book by chance? If it is, she disputes the DNA testing done on the remains of the Imperial Family. She also basis most of her book on another book that has a history all of its own.

Well, I have a book at home called 'plots to rescue the tsar', haven't read it yet but I suppose it is documentated enough.

I agree that there might not be too much discussion coming from this but what I find even more interesting is the role the various monarchs/cousins of Nicholas and Alexandra played in this. Esp. George V's role was rather dubious; I believe in the end it was only Alfonso XIII of Spain who showed his hospitality, though too late.

 

[Marengo]

Yes, that is the book! I haven't read a letter of it yet so I don't know about his views on the Imperial Family. But it sounds interesting...

--

About George V: I always find it curious that they usually present it either he invited the Romanovs and Britain would end up as a communist republic or he doesn't invite the Romanovs and it stays a monarchy. I think that is rather over simplifying the past, probably done to give Geoge's decision some credibility. I can understand that some parts of society wouldn't have liked the IF to start living in Kent for example, but I do not think it would fuel as much turmoil as they expected if they were to settle on Malta or South Africa for example.

Another thing is that in this people usually focus on George V and not on the other European monarchs. Of course Britain was Russia's main ally and George and Nicky were cousins, but there was an entire network of crowned cousins, I usually wonder what they did? Or what was tried by the Russians themselves?

 

[lexi4]

Shay is a woman. I am going to have to go through her book again to talk about it at all. I can't even remember whether she used primary, secondary or tertiary sources. I do remember that there is a lot of discussion about "plots" but that no conclusion is drawn by the author. I also remember that it was not taken seriously by legit historians and authors of Russian history. One of her sources is a little book called Rescuing the Csar and it is important to know the history behind that book before reading Shay's book, imo. I also think she gleans some of her information from Summers and Mangold, but I am not sure about this part. I would have to check.


The most common reason given for George's "change of heart" is that he was concerned there might be trouble in England if he allowed the Imperial Family to live there. After all, thrones were toppling all over the place.
The offer for asylum was extended to the Nicholas and his family on March 22, 1917. However that offer was withdrawn by April 13. Meanwhile, the family was waiting and pinning their hopes on going to England. Instead, they were transferred to Tobolsk.
I have also read the George again had a change of heart after the family was moved to Yekaterinburg this time via a British spy Stephen Alley who apparently reported back that any rescue attempts from the "House of Special Purpose" would be a suicide mission. I can't remember where I read this. It may have been Shay's book, maybe not.
There are lots of stories about plots and plans to save the tsar. And I am sure there were a lot of discussions about how to do that. What is usually lacking, in my limited experience, is primary source documentation.

 

[BeatrixFan]

We will never know, will we. It is just a guess. And, why extremist rule?

Well, there was alot of extremist feeling rising up around that time and the Revolution in Russia simply encouraged British communists that it was achievable. I think the presence of Nicholas II could only have gone against George V and as fascism became more popular in Britain towards the end of his reign, I could just see the abdication of Edward VIII as a trigger to republic. Personally I'd say a fascist one. I think the presence of Nicholas would just be too big a propaganda move for the left. I think Marengo has it - if the Romanovs had settled in South Africa or another colony, it probably wouldn't have mattered much but to have them at home close to the King....just a bit dangerous IMO given the time.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

The most common reason given for George's "change of heart" is that he was concerned there might be trouble in England if he allowed the Imperial Family to live there. After all, thrones were toppling all over the place.

If anyone should be blamed for the reversal of sanctuary all fingers point to Lord Stamfordham, the King's private secretary, which we all know now. He was the one who strongly encouraged George not to give asylum to the family whatsoever. We now know that George was slightly hesitant to do so, but after realizing that Stamfordham was right -- it is going to make you extremely unpopular if your give sanctuary to a deposed tyrant... add on top of that those who are wanting a republic will use this against you, etc, etc -- he went ahead and refused to help them.

In the end, taking Lord Stamfordham's strong advice, as we all know, he was protecting himself and the future of the British monarchy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And of course the Prime Minister welcomed the revolution. Sent a congratulory note to Lenin.

 

[EmpressRouge]

The execution of the Russian Imperial family prompted a quick response from George to V to rescue his Greek cousins, Prince and Princess Andrew of Greece and their family in 1922.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Well, he was just being polite. In any event, looking at the context and situation prior to the end of the Tsar, Nicholas II was a weak, naïve, and ill prepared for the role he inherited. At the feasts for his coronation, a panic broke out and many people were trampled to death. Nicholas went on with the coronation festivities. The word swept around the country – "Papa Tsar" – did not protect and did not care about his children. The stage was set for the convulsions of the twentieth century.

Centuries of autocratic rule exacted a heavy toll on the Russian people. All government power was vested in the Tsar. Unlike other European countries, there were few stable institutions of government in Russia that functioned regardless of whom was in power. In response to political anger and instability, many Tsars initiated reforms, but could and did change their minds and reverse the reforms. The Russian people were uncommonly patient with their lack of personal liberty and with the dramatic gap between the elite and the peasant masses, but the increasingly liberal philosophy and international trends in the eighteenth and nineteenth century gave them a realization of their unusual oppression and gradually turned the Russian people toward active (but underground) resistance against the policies of their leaders.

Anarchy became a real fear of the Tsars, and they responded with more oppressive measures. The situation came to a head in the cataclysm of World War I. The revolution finally burst upon the country, and the Tsar as well as the whole government was swept away. The succeeding Bolshevik government was the most radical of the European movements. The Communist government, ironically, had key tendencies in common with the government they overthrew; and although they had the power and the will to restore order, they were both authoritative and imperialistic. Also in common with the Tsars, the Soviet system tended to rely on personal power without establishing permanent institutions for efficient operation of the state, and moreover they gradually destroyed the economy by focusing too many resources on military might. By the end of the twentieth century, the Soviet system collapsed.​

So which was better? The Tsars or Lenin and his pals? My answer: Neither, but then again Russia is unlike any other country on earth. They are not fully European nor are they Asian; they are unique unto themselves.