Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => Servants, Friends and Retainers => Topic started by: Martyn on May 12, 2004, 08:06:27 AM

Title: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on May 12, 2004, 08:06:27 AM
Having read Greg and Penny's book "The Fate of the Romanovs" I wondered how long it would be before the subject of Baroness Buxhoeveden was raised.  Not knowing an awful lot about her, I was very surprised to encounter their theory that she had betrayed the family by revealing the existence, and possibly the whereabouts, of the personal jewellery that they had taken with them into exile, in exchange for her personal safety.  It does seem rather curious that she did not suffer the same fate as Mlle Schneider and Countess Hendrikova and that she left Russia with so many of the family's  personal effects.  Did any of these effects reach GD Xenia or GD Olga?
Is it true that GD Xenia loathed the baroness because she was aware of this betrayal and if this is the case, how is it that she ended up being a sort of unoffical lady-in-waiting to Victoria Milford Haven?  I would have thought that if there had been even the slightest doubt about her loyalty to the family that Victoria MF would have summarily dismissed her forever from her presence.  Could Xenia's dislike of Sophie Buxhoeveden been linked to the blame that she attributed to Alix for the downfall of the entire Romanov family; the fact that the baroness had been so intimate with Alix could have made her a scapegoat for the anger and frustration that could not be vented upon Alix herself.  Just a theory - what does anyone think?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: BobAtchison on May 12, 2004, 10:22:41 AM
Do Penny and Greg really say this?  Did they find specific evidence to prove it or was it just conjecture.

It is a possibility but I find it hard to be sure.  There are a number of people that knew about the jewels and valuables in Tobolsk.  I have not found Isa's name mentioned - but perhaps Greg and Penny found something.

It seems unlikely to me that she knew anything specific, since she couldn't come and go into the house like others did.  Also, there were only a few transfers it appears out of the house.  Had she known and told the Bolsheviks or the Guards I am sure they would have STOPPED the transfers, arrested those who did them and searched the house.  Again maybe something has turned up that I haven't seen.

I am not saying that Isa said nothing to the Bolsheviks - she may have to save her life.  It's very odd that she was let go and that makes no sense to me,

Later I know Isa had problems with Gibbes about and a joint bank account in Siberia that they had which she withdrew money out of  without Gibbes's permission.  This put him in a terrible situation and he told her so.  Copies of these letters were at Luton Hoo when I was there.

I don't think the whole story on the jewels has been told yet - there is much that doesn't make sense to me.  The whole question of who knew about them within and outside the entourage is unclear.  I don't know if the Provisional Government knew very much about the jewels they took with them.  There were no inventories they had of the personal jewels and it wiould have taken a long time and the cooperation of people like Gheringer to reconstruct what Alix had with her.  It seems to me the Provisional Government had too many problems of their own to deal with and may not have seen any jewel inquiries through.  perhaps they didn't have an idea of how big her personal collection was.  Very few people knew anything about it, even close friends and family.

What the Bolsheviks knew - well, it should be in an archive somewhere and I haven't seen anything yet that says they knew anything specific.  They might have suspected something in Yekaterinburg, but if they had known about the double camasoles and such they would have immediately searched the bodies for these before taking them to the truck.  Also, they would have throughly searched the rooms immediately after the murder and they didn't do this either (it appears).

So I think the Bolsheviks didn't know about them and it is unlikely Isa said anything that roused any great interest in jewels.

Bob

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: wigstrom on May 12, 2004, 04:55:57 PM
I have never heard of this allegation so would be interested to know if it is based on some fact.
If this had been know would Prince Philip have invited Isa to stay in Buckingham Palace with his mother Princess Alice as her lady-in-waiting during the Coronation festivities of Queen Elizabeth and even attend the coronation ceremony itself? I wonder how many attendees knew at the time that the last Tsarina's lady-in-waiting saw the coronation of Elizabeth II?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Ilana on May 12, 2004, 06:30:25 PM
I have heard this allegation, and when I confronted someone who knew her, she said that it was all historic revisionism.  I'm going to send this person the items in Greg and Penny's book and see what is said about the assertions.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on May 13, 2004, 02:09:54 AM
We were provided with several copies of private letters from Xenia, and also information from her will.  I'm not going to go through the evidence piece by piece as it's in the book-but certainly the Bolsheviks knew about the jewels before the murder in Ekaterinburg-that's too apparent from the wealth of information and testimonies we included.  As far as Buxhoeveden's knowledge, she apparently learned it from Utkina and Nikolaieva, who also shared their information with the Bolsheviks about the jewels.  Yurovsky, Kudrin, Rodzinsky, Bykov, and several others make this clear that the Ural Regional Soviet knew.

Given Buxhoeveden's pattern of behavior in Siberia after the murders-running from Sokolov rather than face questioning-I have little doubt about her role.  I should add, to, that before we decided to include this information, we made quite certain that what we saw, read, and were told was correct to the extent that we could verify it.  I'm sure anyone round who knew Buxhoeveden might well be horrified and label it "revisionism," but such claims stand counter to the hard evidence we saw.

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Namarolf on May 13, 2004, 11:51:54 AM
Was there any particular reason for the Ekaterinburg Bolsehviks not making a search on the family's belongings, including clothes, to look for the jewelry and seize it, instead of waiting until the execution? As far as I know, that was done with many other prisoners, even Romanovs. Considering the way the family was treated, with little respect for privacy -even if thanks to Greg and Penny we may know now that it wasn't as horrible as it was always believed-, I wonder what prevented them to do such a search, esp. if they already knew the jewels were there. Hiding valuables would have added charges against the Romanovs, if needed.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: BobAtchison on May 13, 2004, 07:01:11 PM
Namarolf, I'd have to say I agree with you.  Yurovsky and the other guys are definitely surprized to find the jewels after the murder - that doesn't jive with the idea they knew about them.  Had they known they might be wearing $10M in gems they would not have shot them that way.  They would have searched them first.

Also they could have seached the girls when they eantered the house - a simple frisking could have revealed the lumps in the batting.  Had they wanted to they could have had a female Bolshevik strip search them.

Bob
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on May 14, 2004, 12:51:09 AM
In Bykov's statement, unpublished until it appeared in our book, he relates how Buxhoeveden, Romanova (I mis-stated that it was Utkina earlier) and Nikolaieva told them where and how these jewels were hidden.

Isai Rodzinsky (from a portion of his statement never previously published): "It was laughable-they had their own Diamond Fund in the Ipatiev House.  Do you understand how absurd this was?  They had incalulable wealth in their hands."  At a later point in his statement, he makes clear that the Ural Regional Soviet and Cheka knew of this before the murders-"we knew they had it from what their lady said."

Yurovsky (previously unpublished 1922 memoirs) wrote of "the valuables and jewels we knew they had concealed in their clothes when they arrived, which caused troubles to no end."  He later added that the question of how to get this hidden jewelry from them, while they were alive, "haunted us like a weight around the neck."

I can't speculate why they didn't actually physically search them, but they certainly knew beforehand that the jewels were concealed in clothing.  If nothing else, many passages in Yurovsky's 1922 memoir speak of this and the discussions that took place over it.

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Namarolf on May 14, 2004, 10:13:23 AM
Thank you very much Greg- but I keep wondering why they didn't make the search! It would have been so easy -and they were already used to dig their noses in the Romanov belongings (Radzinsky suggests they even read the diaries). I still can't find a good reason not to examine the family's clothes, esp. if they had very good reasons to pressume there were jewels there. I have read for instance that some weeks before their murders, the Grand Dukes imprisoned in Alapaevsk were forced to give all their valuables to the Bolsh. Why the Ekaterinburg Reds were so "respectful"? Any ideas?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: BobAtchison on May 14, 2004, 01:48:48 PM
It also seems funny that they talked about blowing them up in their beds with grenades - that would have destroyed the valuables.  We know they had things in their pockets and stuff when they were killed.  Perhaps they knew nothing about the camisoles or anything specific about the quantity. You think they would have really searched the bodies in the room if they knew something was there - it still seems to me that they 'stumbled' upon the gems in the forest...

They didn't go after anybody who got jewels in Tobolsk until years later.  This still doesn't make sence to me - but Greg obviously has something I don't.  Is that the same Bykov book that says 'we threw their ashes to the wind"?

Bob
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on May 15, 2004, 12:55:41 AM
Quote
They didn't go after anybody who got jewels in Tobolsk until years later.  This still doesn't make sence to me - but Greg obviously has something I don't.  Is that the same Bykov book that says 'we threw their ashes to the wind"?

Bob


Bob-

The Bykov statement was written in I think 1927 or 28 and was unpublished; the claim that the "ashes were scattered to the wind" was made by Ermakov to journalist Richard Halliburton in the early 1930s, and published first in an American magazine and then in Halliburton's "Seven League Boots."

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on May 17, 2004, 08:51:37 AM
Perhaps Yurovsky was hoping that Alix might bring forth the hidden jewellery when he requested that they hand over their valuables to him for safekeeping.  If so, he must have been bitterly disappointed at the collection of rather less valuable articles that the family offered up.  I find it hard to grasp quite how much jewellery that they actually took with them when they left the Alexander Palace.  Count Benckendorff apparently made a detailed inventory af all the possessions that the Imperial Family left behind, which included some of Alix's  personal jewellery as opposed to imperial items.  Ostensibly these included tiaras, necklaces and bracelets, quite possibly parures that were large and difficult to conceal.  However, she may have wanted to camouflage the fact that she was taking some of her personal collection with her; logically speaking, if she had taken it all, this would have been quite apparent and possibly dangerous.  Has anyone ever seen this inventory?
Having said this, it must have been rather difficult to conceal the five tiaras that were discovered in Tobolsk, never mind all the other pieces that were located with them.
In view of the arguments about Isa and her knowledge of the location of the jewellery, I can't quite get over the fact that she also knew of the jewels that were found by GD Xenia hidden amongst Countess Hendrikov's clothes.  Does anyone have an idea of what these were?
As for the third and final cache of jewels, did the Bolsheviks compile an inventory of exactly what was retrieved form the clothing of the Grand Duchesses?
With hindsight, this is a considerable amount of jewellery that must have become a source of anxiety as their captivity lengthened; Alix obviously sought to rationalise the amount that could be safely concealed about their persons.  Personally I find it very sad  that Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia were obliged physically to carry the burden of objects that in former times had emphasised their status; Alix must have assessed the risk and decided that there was no danger of them being searched.  Otherwise would she really have exposed her daughters to that kind of humiliation and danger?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on July 20, 2004, 08:13:13 PM
Quote
The real role of Baroness Buxhoeveden in Siberia was contrary to the role as hinted by Greg and Penny; I will not further comment on this but assume that finally time will reveal her true intentions and the very important role she was playing.

Baroness Buxhoeveden remained loyal to the Romanovs and was "rewarded" and "protected" by those who knew.

I think she deserves until then the utmost careful approach when discussing her person in public.

Harald  


I have no problem in having our research and conclusions challenged-it is, after all, how we learn things.  But, having given our evidence, I think if you want to responsibly challenge it you need to be more forthcoming.  Without hard evidence to the contrary, I'm not inclined to dismiss what we learned based on an unknown assertion.  So please share so we can assess which version is correct.

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on July 20, 2004, 11:59:45 PM
Quote


The Bykov statement was written in I think 1927 or 28 and was unpublished; the claim that the "ashes were scattered to the wind" was made by Ermakov to journalist Richard Halliburton in the early 1930s, and published first in an American magazine and then in Halliburton's "Seven League Boots."

Greg King


Greg, I have a copy of Paul Bykov's book in Russian. The first edition was published in 1926 in Sverdlovsk and then again republished during 1930 in both Moscow and Leningrad. Stalin banished the book to the special archives.

The Russian version of this book re-surfaced again just before the collapse of the Soviet regime in 1990. It was published by the "Ural Worker" again in Sverdlovsk.

I saw an English translation of this book which I believe was published sometime in the early 1930's.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: elisa_1872 on July 21, 2004, 06:19:29 AM
There was also i believe a French translation of this book under the title "Les dernier jours des Romanov".
But i'd have to check.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on July 21, 2004, 08:40:12 AM
Quote

Greg, I have a copy of Paul Bykov's book in Russian. The first edition was published in 1926 in Sverdlovsk and then again republished during 1930 in both Moscow and Leningrad. Stalin banished the book to the special archives.
 
The Russian version of this book re-surfaced again just before the collapse of the Soviet regime in 1990. It was published by the "Ural Worker" again in Sverdlovsk.
 
I saw an English translation of this book which I believe was published sometime in the early 1930's.


Hi Belochka-

Actually Bykov's statement is different than his books.  His statement was written privately and deposited in the archives, and not published, as far as I know, until we included extracts in "Fate of the Romanovs."  His books are another affair.  In 1921 he wrote an essay called "Posledniye dni poslednia imperator Nikolai" that appeared in the book "Rabochaya revolyutsiya na Urale," published in 1921 in Sverdlovsk.  Only 10,000 copies were printed and Moscow ordered all known copies seized and destroyed, presumably because his account included detailed information that the Ural Regional Soviet had blithly ignored Moscow's instructions about the prisoners and shot them on their own; a few copies made their way to Berlin and Prague, though, and thus the contents became known.  In 1926 he re-wrote the article, expanding it as the book "Posledniye dni Romanovykh," which was again published in Sverdlovsk.  This time it appeared, with a suitably altered text, with Moscow's approval.  It appeared in English, French, German, and American translations in the 1930s, but is substantially different from his original article and indeed from his personal statement in the archives.

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on July 21, 2004, 10:58:08 AM
Dear Martyn,

When I was in Russia doing research for "Jewels of the Romanovs" I was greeted with blank stares at the archives when I asked for Benckendorff's inventory.  No one knew that it existed, which did not surprise me.  Virtually everything in the archives relating to the family's personal jewelry had been removed, or was forbidden to me.

At the Diamond Fund, I was shown the photographs of the jewels which were taken in Tobolsk, they included drawers full of jewelry (including the necklace that Faberge made for Alexandra for the Boyar Fete, minus the enormous emerald which was part of the Crown Jewels, and which had been returned),  The Tiaras had all been bent flat so that they could be stored that way.

I was also shown the inventory of the recovered stones from the assassination, their weights and values.  I was told that they had been sent to the offices of the KGB as "evidence" and that they had disappeared.  The Director of the Diamond Fund thought that they had been sold to Cartier in the 1930's. but research I did in the Cartier archives does not support that.  Cartier did not buy loose stones or finished jewelry from the Russian Government during the 30's.  Bob once mentioned that someone in Russia told him that they believe that the KGB still has them.

All of the recovered jewelry appears to have been broken apart and sold, but no one could (or would) tell me when, or to whom.

The only jewel-related book I saw remaining in the archives was a small purple notebook, bound in card, which contined a list, in pencil, in Alexandra's hand, of the jewelry she brought with her from Hesse.  She brought very little, the two things which seemed to mean the most to her were a gold bangle (presumably the one she couldn't take off by Siberia), and the pearl necklace that had belonged to her mother, having been a wedding gift from Queen Victoria.

As to why the bolsheviks didn't  take the jewels away from the Imperial Family, it seems to me there are many possibilities; Russia was in the midst of Civil War, and there was no guarantee that the Whites would not win.  If the Communists were overturned, and the Romanovs restored, the guards would have been in a terrible situation indeed.  There was also always the possibility that the Romanovs might be released, and sent into exile.  Finally, the act of taking away the jewels would have contradicted the illusion that they were simply being "kept safe" by the government.  

Best,

nick
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on July 21, 2004, 11:29:15 PM
Greg thanks for your information. :)

This is just a thought:

Could it be ever presumed that G.D. Ksenia never wanted to see Buxhoeveden, simply because she survived?

Her perceived failure to prevent her charges from meeting their ultimate fate was held against her. She failed the duty of care entrusted to her by the I.F. and by extension to the surviving family members in exile. Her survival meant that she placed herself above that of the children. If these thoughts have any credibility, then it could be understood that there was nothing left to say.




Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on July 22, 2004, 02:32:55 AM
Quote
Greg thanks for your information. :)

This is just a thought:

Could it be ever presumed that G.D. Ksenia never wanted to see Buxhoeveden, simply because she survived?

Her perceived failure to prevent her charges from meeting their ultimate fate was held against her. She failed the duty of care entrusted to her by the I.F. and by extension to the surviving family members in exile. Her survival meant that she placed herself above that of the children. If these thoughts have any credibility, then it could be understood that there was nothing left to say.


I can only say that the private letters from Xenia that were provided to us made it clear that she believed Buxhoeveden had been involved in something that made her "suspicious"-hence her warning to Victoria Milford Haven about, as I recall, the Baroness's "trustworthiness" and loyalty.  It's possible, of course, she had the reaction you suggest above, but it seems more to have been grounded in genuine distrust.

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on July 22, 2004, 10:27:37 PM
Quote

I can only say that the private letters from Xenia that were provided to us made it clear that she believed Buxhoeveden had been involved in something that made her "suspicious"-hence her warning to Victoria Milford Haven about, as I recall, the Baroness's "trustworthiness" and loyalty.  
Greg King


Greg,

It is unfortunate that those suspicions were never tested in any way. IMHO the combination of any alleged impropriety combined with the obvious fact that she was the only member of the Imperial suite to survive in Ekaterinburg, certainly tarnished her in the eyes of many who knew her. Any form of distrust consequent of her survival would have indeed closed many doors to her in exile.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Greg_King on July 23, 2004, 02:30:00 AM
Quote

Greg,

It is unfortunate that those suspicions were never tested in any way. IMHO the combination of any alleged impropriety combined with the obvious fact that she was the only member of the Imperial suite to survive in Ekaterinburg, certainly tarnished her in the eyes of many who knew her. Any form of distrust consequent of her survival would have indeed closed many doors to her in exile.


True enough, but Buxhoeveden didn't help her case by literally running from the White investigators and refusing to talk to them about what she knew-Sokolov tried repeatedly to interview her and she boarded a train rather than do so.  In Europe Sokolov said, "her conscience is not clear" or words to that effect regarding her time in Siberia.

Greg King
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on July 28, 2004, 01:44:09 PM
Nick, thank you very much for that information.  I have wondered often about how the jewels were transported, particularly the tiaras which normally are kept in fitted domed cases to protect the settings.  Nevertheless, I am still astonished at the quantity of jewellery that they took with them, not to mention the considerable weight; was it 17 pounds of jewellery that Yurovsky recovered from the camisoles and clothing?  That really is a considerable weight..............
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on July 28, 2004, 01:49:07 PM
I'm a little disappointed that Harald has not risen to the challenge and enlightened us about Buxhoeveden's secret mission in Siberia.
After all, how can it harm for us to know the truth now after all these years?  It could, after all, remove our (substantiated) doubts and restore our faith in her.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on July 29, 2004, 12:01:49 AM
Quote
I will not further comment on this but assume that finally time will reveal her true intentions and the very important role she was playing.

Baroness Buxhoeveden remained loyal to the Romanovs and was "rewarded" and "protected" by those who knew.

I think she deserves until then the utmost careful approach when discussing her person in public.

Harald  


With respect Harald, if you are going to present some sort of challenge, then please let us understand what the Baroness's intentions were in Siberia. Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on August 18, 2004, 07:22:22 AM
I would still love to have a little more information as to what B.Buxhoeveden was up to in Siberia.  It is most unfair to tease us with a snippet of information and leave us hanging in suspense threafter.
Does anyone else have any theories about what she might have been up to.  I have my own, and they mainly revolve around the same theme - that of saving her skin.....
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2004, 10:39:21 AM
Quote

True enough, but Buxhoeveden didn't help her case by literally running from the White investigators and refusing to talk to them about what she knew-Sokolov tried repeatedly to interview her and she boarded a train rather than do so.  In Europe Sokolov said, "her conscience is not clear" or words to that effect regarding her time in Siberia.

Greg King


I would assume that character assasination of Buxhoeveden should be avoided because it is no longer possible for her to defend herself and explain what actually occured in Ekaterinburg.

It makes absolutely no sense to me why anyone would want to tear down the friendship of Buxhoeveden toward the Royal Family.  I didn't see all those who criticise her in Ekaterinburg or even sending help to  her or any of the Royal Family.

She may be guilty of being a survivor or she may have revealed other information but we don't know under what circumstances she was placed.   I'm sure there are things which occured she never told anyone.

Since I know nothing about this women,  I can not really defend her with any words from letters or data,  but  this kind of character assasination is not a good direction to take so long after the events took place.  It sound more like family gossipy  riff-raff kinda stuff.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Janet_W. on August 18, 2004, 12:47:08 PM
I don't think it's character assassination. I think that what Greg and Penny have accomplished is to bring forth information which causes us to question old, comfortable patterns of thought.

I was probably just as astonished as anyone to read about the Baroness and her possible collusion. It was a complete stretch, since I had valued her books more than those written by any of the others who knew Alexandra. I appreciated the writing style of the Baroness and felt her to be very rational and intelligent . . . and I still think those qualities were part of her character. But what was brought up in FOTR does throw a wrench into things.

It's not easy to recognize less-than-desirable qualities in people we've grown to admire, or--conversely--admit that someone we've disliked may not be so awful after all. I find it highly possible that, as the tragedy continued to play out, various servants and members of the suite would be having second thoughts, even to the point of thinking of a way to preserve their own lives. Commendable? Probably not. Understandable? Yes.

Perhaps, after the tragedy, the Baroness wrote in her balanced but clearly devoted style as a way of dealing with whatever transgressions--small or large--she had committed. Very few of us are completely proud of everything we've done in our lives. It may be that the Baroness panicked and said and/or did some things which worked in her favor. I think if we can approach it that way it should not be looked upon as "character assassination" but simply an attempt to understand what was going on at the time, and explain why events turned out as they did.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2004, 07:16:18 PM
As I've said,  I know nothing about her.

I think what I should have said:  Tread carefully and make sure you have proof other than some "in-family" dispute before accusing her of  culliusion with the Reds / Cheka.

So, now,  I'll have to go find my book Fate of the Romanovs and reread this portion about Buxhoeveden.

AGRBear

Edition #1:
Quote

I can only say that the private letters from Xenia that were provided to us made it clear that she believed Buxhoeveden had been involved in something that made her "suspicious"-hence her warning to Victoria Milford Haven about, as I recall, the Baroness's "trustworthiness" and loyalty.  It's possible, of course, she had the reaction you suggest above, but it seems more to have been grounded in genuine distrust.

Greg King


"...something that had made her 'suspicious'- hence her warning to Victoria...."

I do hope this is based on more than just  one person's suspicions.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on August 19, 2004, 09:20:00 AM
With respect, do you honestly that that Greg and Penny would have raised this issue lightly?
I have to agree with Janet.  No one wishes to destroy this woman's reputation needlessly but we are entitled to discuss issues here that we think are relevant.  Some of these issues may be of small consequence in the general scheme of things and others may be important.
I have reread all the previous posts in this thread and am firmly of the opinion that this is a perfect example of why this site is so popular and worthwhile.  
The debate is intelligent and most people are careful in the way that they express their ideas; if anything the only comment that I now have an issue with is one that I made myself, when I glibly referred to Buxhoeveden saving her skin. I retract this and apologise.
This kind of discussion helps us understand history; I think that most people who visit this site have a hard time dealing with what happened to the IF - I know that I do.
We have (thankfully) relatively few discussions that deal with this and it seems to me quite natural that there should be disagreements.
With each new publication we learn new facts about the Romanovs, some of which we may have trouble accepting; this issue seems to be one of them.  I just wish that Harald, who implied that he has some knowledge of the truth about Isa, had perhaps been a little more forthcoming and perhaps helped us towards resolving this matter.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 19, 2004, 10:45:11 AM
Discussions are great!  

I don't know if you are aware,  but I'm from a small group who think one or all escaped from the Ipatiev House on the night of 16 /17 July 1918.  So,  I'm always the one "out of the box", so to speak.

And, no, I don't think King or Wilson would  damage someone's reputation without evidence.

I reread what has been said and then went back to The Fate of the Romanovs  p. 505-6:  (1) "...She ignored requests from Sergeyev to be interviewed...."  and (2) ....In exile, she ignored repeated requests from Nicholas Sokolov...."  and ((3) "...Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna fired off a number of angry lettters to Vicitoria, warning that the baroness was not to be trusted. Buxhoeveden, she declared, was guilty of treachery in Siberia....."

(1) and (2): Is there a statement anywhere by her which explains why she ignored either Sergeyev and Sokolov?  I could come up with many reasons why,  if I had been her,  I would not have talked to either.  But,  if we have her own words that would be best...

(3) What did Xenia know/or think she knew?  Who told her? And was that person in Ekaterinburg at the time?  Did Xenia and Buxhoeveden ever speak after Buxhoeveden's escape?

Excuse me for asking so many questions,  but as I've said,  I don't know anything about her.  So,  let's discuss who siad what to whom and why,  and, discover the truth togather.

AGRBear  ;D

Edition #1:  
King wrote: "As far as Buxhoeveden's knowledge, she apparently learned it from Utkina and Nikolaieva, who also shared their information with the Bolsheviks about the jewels.  Yurovsky, Kudrin, Rodzinsky, Bykov, and several others make this clear that the Ural Regional Soviet knew. "

I'm not sure what is meant:  "...she apparently learned it from Utkina and Nikolaieva" ????

With having been under arrest for so long,  it seems to me that Yurovsky and the others would have figured out on their own there were hidden jewels.  However, if they had known they were in their "corsets"  then why were they surprised bullets bounced off and bayonets didn't pierce?

I think I agree with the following so far:

Quote
Do Penny and Greg really say this?  Did they find specific evidence to prove it or was it just conjecture.

It is a possibility but I find it hard to be sure.  There are a number of people that knew about the jewels and valuables in Tobolsk.  I have not found Isa's name mentioned - but perhaps Greg and Penny found something.

It seems unlikely to me that she knew anything specific, since she couldn't come and go into the house like others did.  Also, there were only a few transfers it appears out of the house.  Had she known and told the Bolsheviks or the Guards I am sure they would have STOPPED the transfers, arrested those who did them and searched the house.  Again maybe something has turned up that I haven't seen.

I am not saying that Isa said nothing to the Bolsheviks - she may have to save her life.  It's very odd that she was let go and that makes no sense to me,

Later I know Isa had problems with Gibbes about and a joint bank account in Siberia that they had which she withdrew money out of  without Gibbes's permission.  This put him in a terrible situation and he told her so.  Copies of these letters were at Luton Hoo when I was there.

I don't think the whole story on the jewels has been told yet - there is much that doesn't make sense to me.  The whole question of who knew about them within and outside the entourage is unclear.  I don't know if the Provisional Government knew very much about the jewels they took with them.  There were no inventories they had of the personal jewels and it wiould have taken a long time and the cooperation of people like Gheringer to reconstruct what Alix had with her.  It seems to me the Provisional Government had too many problems of their own to deal with and may not have seen any jewel inquiries through.  perhaps they didn't have an idea of how big her personal collection was.  Very few people knew anything about it, even close friends and family.

What the Bolsheviks knew - well, it should be in an archive somewhere and I haven't seen anything yet that says they knew anything specific.  They might have suspected something in Yekaterinburg, but if they had known about the double camasoles and such they would have immediately searched the bodies for these before taking them to the truck.  Also, they would have throughly searched the rooms immediately after the murder and they didn't do this either (it appears).

So I think the Bolsheviks didn't know about them and it is unlikely Isa said anything that roused any great interest in jewels.

Bob

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Sergei on August 19, 2004, 07:38:34 PM
Hi everyone, it would appear from one source that the Imperial family themselves were aware that Baroness Buxhoeveden's attitude towards them had changed.
I do realise that my sources for this statement are very controversial. Like most of you I have read any book on the Romanovs that I can get my hands on!  Unfortunately this means that often (like now) I cannot remember where I've read particular quotes.
Here goes; either in Lames Blair Lovell's "the Lost Princess" or Peter Kurth's "Anastasia" the topic of Buxhoeveden comes up and 'Anastasia" says something along the lines that following the revolution the Baroness had changed in her attitude towards them and that no one in the family could understand why.  I seem to recall that the Empress was particularly concerned about the change in the Baroness's attitude.
Now I know that these sources are seen as unproved and possibly dubious but I think it's interesting that "Anastasia"  mentions something that casts a shadow on the hitherto unquestioned loyalty of the Baroness. It's also interesting, for those that think Anna Anderson was a fake that she specifically mentions concerns about Buxhoeveden's loyalty which years later we are now discussing on this messageboard. I don't have a strong conviction either way regarding beliefs about Mrs Anderson being Anastasia or conversely  that  Anastasia died in the cellar but  I do think it's interesting that a fake would mention the Baroness specifically and not any other name that she could have mentioned eg Hendrikova, Schneider, Botkin etc etc if she was trying to build a case for having intimate knowledge of the Imperial Family.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Martyn on August 20, 2004, 03:55:09 AM
This is such an interesting discussion.  My basic problem with Baroness Buxhoeveden is that I just can't see why she was released and others weren't.
Countess Hendrikova and Mlle Schneider were both imprisoned and shot, yet Isa was simply set free.  Am I correct in thinking that her excuse was that the Soviets considered her to be a foreign national?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on September 23, 2004, 10:48:08 PM
Does anyone know anything about the circumstances of her death?

Thanks for any help  ;D
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 30, 2004, 11:54:39 AM
In Peter Kurth's book on page 58, AA accuses Isa of obtaining her freedom by giving the Bolsheviks information that prevented a rescue attempt at Tobolsk.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on April 11, 2005, 12:38:29 AM
I think that she was released without any reason.
Maybe, some of the soldiers thought  that she is pitty and sympathic.
Maybe she was smart and understood the situation - understood clearly that she will be killed anyway  if she will delay, so she gave all the valuables she had to the right person and flew away.
I think that nobody of the surrounding of the Tsar thought that they will be killed those days ( especially in Tobolsk)
It was only her who was released , or somebody else?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lc on May 27, 2005, 02:01:41 PM
Hi Elisa,
Yours is the only reference I've found for the year of Baroness Buxhoeveden's death (ie. 1956). Can you please tell us the source which confirmed this date for you? I'd appreciate that!
LC
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: RealAnastasia on May 27, 2005, 07:36:27 PM
Hi:

               My problem with Baroness Buxoheveden is the same than yours, and I have too many questions about this woman , when she was in Siberia with the IF.

                 I respect too much Penny Wilson and Greg King, to think they wanted to damage Boxoheveden reputation. They are historians, so they basically does they job. Historians must find the truth, and the truth is more deep and complex than things that you read in newspapers saying THIS and not another is the truth.

                 When an historian (I'm one, but I didn't write about Romanovs, but about French Revolution and Argentinian History) finds some interesting info, that is not these of the official History, he/she must said it to the people, even if at first, people would laugh at him/her for he/she is contradicting things that all people "of course" knows.

                   Now, when you said that you are doubting about "proved facts" it's a new use to said that "you have a conspirative mind"... ;D And...of course, the answer is YES! We, historians, we have conspirative minds...For conspirations existed since the first day of the Human Being history! Some historians before us, find about things that we'll never imagine they were true...but they were! Almost until another historian finds another document denying the whole thing. This is History, and be sure that it is not a static science.

               Historians didn't believe in newspapers affirmations, nor in "official theories", they must by searching for truth, always searching. For us, historians, an historical "case" could never be closed, and if one of them seems to be so, sometimes , new documents and infos comes to the light, and you must open it again. An historian mind must be open at all possibilities.

              Sorry to said that; I'm being rude. But I become very angry all times I read some people critizicing Penny and Greg, who are always searching documents and new infos. They are HARD WORKING, and they are behind the truth, not wanting to damage dead people. They are in touch with sources that not many members here knows, since we only read books about the IF. It's the only thing we can do. We have not documents. I know very well the difference, for I work with documents and believe me...It's very different that you may find in documents, and sources than in books.

                    And of course, Bear: I also believe that one IF member, at least, escaped from the Ipatiev House...

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: rskkiya on May 27, 2005, 09:37:38 PM
Quote
Hi:

                                                                      And of course, Bear: I also believe that one IF member, at least, escaped from the Ipatiev House...

RealAnastasia.


RA
Who do you think survived?

I am very interested in your historical research work on the French Revolution -- is it available for a lay reading or is it purely a scholarly piece?

rskkiya



(publish or perish hehehe)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: RealAnastasia on May 28, 2005, 07:17:39 PM
Hi, rsskyia (hope I spelled correctly your screen-name! ;D):

                     I'm not an original. I always believed that Anastasia and Alexei escaped. Well; that's not true. I don't think they escaped but they were rescued. Since I like so much Olga's character I would have wished, it was her who survived. Unfortunately, things seems to have turned pretty bad for good old Olishka.  :'( Nothing makes me think she escaped, or was rescued . And if Anastasia was not the one who survived, I give y two cents to Tatiana. Of course, the Tatia Romani story is just ridicoulous, and I believe much more Alexandra Michaelis (see the thread about those two women in the "Claimants, post here" forum.  Too resume the discussion I must said that my own idea is that Anastasia and Alexei survived, but I'm open to all possibilities. Perhaps, Anastasia didn't survive. Perhaps, Alexei died because his hemophilia shortly after the execution...I'm always ready to know and accept all theories. I'm not narrow-minded.

              As for my work: I have one published. It's name is "The Socialism in French Revolution". You may see, in the cover, "La Liberté Guidand le Peuple", by Delacroix. It was published in "Editorial Fraterna", but the whole book is in Spanish...Since I was born and currently living in Argentina. Now, I'm working in a "Thermidor" book. I'm a kind of morbid interest in awful, long ago nights, where people is shot, and mistreated, and killed.   ;D And don't worry! I don't think a single robespierriste survived this night in Hotel-de-Ville and after it, the guillotine!  ;D ;) Oh, well! An historian named Lenôtre wrote that Hanriot, the Commandant General of Army Forces, was seen walking in a Paris street, twelve years after Thermidor! Of course, I don't believe this. All Paris could see Hanriot being killed in the guillotine before their eyes!

            Feel free to ask me whatever you want to.
            RealAnastasia.

P.S: And yes...I have a cosnpirative mind!  ;) ::)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lc on June 12, 2005, 11:17:22 PM
Hi,
I've spent hours on the internet, have had the public library's research department checking...but have been unsuccessful in finding Baroness Buxhoeveden's date of birth and death. I see one reference to her death in 1956 on this discussion board. Does anyone know the circumstances of her death - when and where? And where does the 1956 date come from?
Thanks! I'd love to clear up this mystery.
LC
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on July 05, 2005, 02:24:41 PM
Quote
No need to get a copy guys: Thanks to Bob, Buxhoeveden books are online.

Try this one:
http://alexanderpalace.org/leftbehind/
 ;)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: felix on July 24, 2005, 07:28:26 PM
I just finnished rereading her three books. All worth reading. She was a great writer.  And so close to the subject.  Her bio of A.F. I think is the best book written about her.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 03:48:05 PM
Buxhoevden talks about the 17teeners who had been part of the IF staff found on the following URL:

http://alexanderpalace.org/leftbehind/VIII.html

>>Some well-wisher had scrawled in chalk upon our carriage that "17 servants of the Tyrant Nicholas II" were travelling in it. This became the cause of much hostile comment at our stopping-places, as can be well imagined. The "17 servants" comprised Gibbes and Gilliard, Mademoiselle Tegleva and myself, as well as maids, footmen, and cooks. It was a varied company: the Tobolsk "odd man" side by side with the Empress's second dresser, M. G. Toutelberg, quite unable at first, poor soul, to grasp the changed situation, but later, when facing actual danger, developing quite unsuspected resourcefulness and courage. There was the fat, clean-shaven butler, in his blue frock-coat, sitting disconsolately on his bag, gazing straight before him but quite alert whenever one of the other servants appealed to his superior judgment, when his opinion, expressed with befitting dignity, was received with respectful attention. It was strange to me to see how these men maintained, perhaps unconsciously, the customary household discipline. Not only did they treat the butler with due consideration, but were always most attentive to us, trying their best to make things more comfortable, carrying the water, working the pump, offering us a taste of their best morsels, poor stuff though it might be.

The under servants were footmen, cooks, and the maids of Mademoiselle Schneider and Countess Hendrikoff - frightened, consumptive creatures, whose racking cough and gasping breath were heard at night by all the inmates of our car. One of the cooks, a thin, dark man - he was "the sauce-artist," he told me - seemed to be a wit. He kept the party in fits of laughter by his sallies, but the best, seemingly, were not for our ears, for they were delivered in a lowered voice, and though they were greeted with much merriment, restraining glances were thrown in our direction. There was not much laughter, though. Apart from the utter discomfort that surrounded them, those poor people had enough to make them feel sad and dejected. They had lost their situations and their hopes of a pension. All had large families and were trained to no other kind of work. Wherever they might go in search of employment their past would be counted against them. Their future was dark indeed, but they spoke little about their personal troubles. They had followed their Emperor voluntarily into exile, and his fate dwarfed all their own anxieties in their minds.<<
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 06, 2005, 07:26:00 PM
This is all interesting. I just read it all and thought it would be interesting to bump it up for more discussion.

First, here is what King & Wilson say: FOTR page 141. Talking about what happened on the Rus
"Even as these horrors unfolded, another ominous and, in the end, brutally personal situation played itself out. Unknown to the terrified grand duchesses, a previously trusted member of their father's suite willingly betrayed their secrets. One learning that she ha apparently kept Soloviev's money, Baroness Buxhoeveden had come umder the penetrating gaze of the Bolsheviks, who suspected her in some unkown plot. Two searches of her apartment early on the morning of April 25 presumably failed to disclose the hidden funds, but the increased presure left Buxhoeveden in feat for her own welfare.
"As the grand duchesses' terrified screams filled the decks of the Rus, echoing across the placid waters to the darkness beyond, Buxhoeveden acted. Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate, or to guarantee her later safety, she found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed beneath the clothing of hte three young women, but where the items could be found. 'The buttons on her coat aren't buttons,' she revealed, 'they are diamonds'; 'the aigrette of the hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia.' and; that belt there -- underneath it are ropes of pearls."
The source King and Wilson cite for this is: Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO, f. 4`, op 1, d.149
Some have wondered about a search of the IF for jewels. I doubt a search would have revealed jewels hidden in clothing as these were.

King and Wilson continue:
"Acting out of fear, Buxhoeveden nevertheless guaranteed her own safety on reaching the Urals. Alone of hte former imperial suite, she was not arrested and imprisioned but allowed to first live in a railroad coach at the station in Ekaterinburg, then to leave the Urals unharmed with the members of the household. Both Gillilard and Gibbes later openly questioned how the baroness had managed to escape the fate of Countess Hendrikova and Mademoiselle Schneider, the only other two women of the suite. 'My father,' said George Gibbes, 'rarely spoke of her. When he did, it was in a distrateful way, indicating that she'd been responsible not only for his misery but also that of the imperial family.'" Source listed by King and Wilson: George Gibbes to King, May 1989.

Sounds like that last one is straight from the horse's mouth.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 07:51:30 PM
Thanks, Lexi.  It's my understanding that not only was the Gibbes family very cynical about her, but the GD Xenia specifically warned Victoria Milford-Haven not to take the Baroness in and always refused to receive her.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 11:29:25 PM
Lexi - any idea what her motive was to lie, steal the money, and betray the IF?  

And do you suppose that her post-revolution writing was genuine, or was she simply tryng to compensate for her actions?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 02:02:08 AM
Quote
Does anyone know anything about the circumstances of her death?

Thanks for any help  ;D


Sophie, Baroness von Buxhoeveden, was born on June 9, 1883 (old style), at home, in St. Petersburg, Russia and the Dowager Empress (then Empress) attended her baptism.

She was the daugther of Baron Karl Matthis Ludwig von Buxhoeveden and of Mme Ludmilla Ossokina, who was one of the first victims of the Revolution.  Baron Karl von Buxhoeveden died in the emigration in 1935.  He and his family were Baltic Lutherans.  Baroness von Buxhoeveden was Orthodox.  Sophie, Baroness von Buxhoeveden, had one brother, Piotr Karlovitch, who died tragically when he was less than 24-years old, a death from which his mother never recovered.

Sophie, Baroness von Buxhoeveden died on November 26, 1956 (new style) near London, England was accorded a full Orthodox funeral by the London parish of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile.  I have been asked not disclose her place of burial except to say that it is in hallowed ground for a person of the Russian Orthodox faith.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on August 07, 2005, 03:00:35 AM
I have  read in the memoirs of Prince Scherbatov that
there were fixed price for rescuing relatives from the Red Army ( from 10-30 000 Dollars).
Maybe Sofia just paid ( or somebody paid ) and went away.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 04:16:51 AM
Quote
I have  read in the memoirs of Prince Scherbatov that
there were fixed price for rescuing relatives from the Red Army ( from 10-30 000 Dollars).
Maybe Sofia just paid ( or somebody paid ) and went away.


Hirakushka,

Are you referring to the late Prince Alexei Scherbatov who died in New York two or three years ago?

In any case, yes, there was a price, but it was NOT in paper money.  It needed to be paid in either gold bullion or in diamonds and a very barter-like system.  The amounts quoted are correct.

And the von Buxhoevedens had holdings abroad which they did not return to Russia in 1912 as per the Imperial Ukaze.  They possesed a lovely "ocabnyak" in Florence, Italy and helped to further the Russian Church there (already built); they had a very, very beautiful "hotel particulier" in Nice, which remains in the family after all these years, and an apartment in Paris, or actually in Petit Clamart, I believe (which has been sold).  In addition, money had been transferred to Sweden prior to outbreak of the war.

So if you are indirectly asking whether Baroness von Buxhoeveden might have bought her way out of this, the answer is, based on their still intact finances, is yes.

To give you an indication of this, when the branch that left Paris settled in New York, they purchased a house near Oyster Bay, Long Island, which is not exactly on the register of the most empoverished cities.  The sons and daugthers in New York continue to thrive and have done remarkably well.  After the death of the old Baron von Buxhoeveden in New York, Mme Veuve went to marry a very titled Frenchman, no many, but quite titled, and to the shock of her family, was received into Catholicsm.  It caused a major family rift.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on August 07, 2005, 06:04:59 AM
Yes, I think so. Alexey Pavlovich Scherbatov.
I have got his book recently at Troitse-Sergieva Lavra.
I was  just published by publishing house of Sretensky Monastery at Moscow.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Forum Admin on August 07, 2005, 10:05:31 AM
I can also confirm that one could buy freedom from the Red soldiers.  Tante Lilly's mother bought her brother George's freedom right off the prison train in Kidslovosk for 2,000 gold rubles.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Finelly on August 07, 2005, 12:42:21 PM
The problem here is that it seems she didn't use her own money.

She used money given to her by Romanov supporters that was intended to purchase food and ensure safety for the IF.
And then she apparently stole money from Gibbes....

Around here, they call that fraud and theft.  
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on August 07, 2005, 12:52:37 PM
A lot or russian scholars now is keeping to say that there were no such kind of "Romanov supporters" in Ekaterinburg those time.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Finelly on August 07, 2005, 12:59:47 PM
Right, Hikaru.  People snuck the money in from outside.  The difficulty Romanov supporters and friends encountered in raising the money and smuggling it into the city makes it even more tragic.

But I think that the money was sent to her in Tobolsk, not Ekaterinburg, now that I think about it.  Not that this changes much.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 06:55:43 PM
Quote
The problem here is that it seems she didn't use her own money.

She used money given to her by Romanov supporters that was intended to purchase food and ensure safety for the IF.
And then she apparently stole money from Gibbes....

Around here, they call that fraud and theft.  


These are very, very serious allegations.

And since they are serious allegations, the burden of proof is not up to the accused to proove his or her innonece, which Baroness von Buxhoeveden may no longer do, but upon the accuser to proove the culpability of the accuser.  I, for one, would never go around, even under the anonymity of a Forum like this, accusing a person of theft and fraud.  But it is to others to do otherwise.

If one cannot prove such accusations, when they are set forth in writing, around here it is called libel.

I would sincerely and politely ask that the above-mentioned poster please set forth his or her irrefutable evidence in a future posting, and such evidence, to be irrefutable, should not consist of voire-dire nor of references to secondary or tertiary sources.  It will be interesting to review it.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on August 07, 2005, 07:22:38 PM
AlexP - reread the whole thread - King and Wilson in their book Fate of the Romanovs raise the point that Buxhoeveden was less than totally loyal to the family - in other words, she worried about herself abit also (and how can blame her??).  I don't have it in front of me now, but I also recall that they spoke about the Baroness not paying back Gibbes.  FOTR is well sourced - I think you'll see their whole hypothis there.

dca
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 07, 2005, 07:26:41 PM
Here is what I found in FOTR.
PP. 148
"Unknown to both of these men, (Gibbes and Gilliard) and ignoared by Buxhoeveden in her memoirs, was her interrogation that afternoon. A few members of the Ural Regional Soviet and Eakterinburg Cheka entered the railroad coach where she waited alone, questioning her at length about her revelations to Rodionov aboard the Rus. During the sessionm, Buxhoeveden repeated her knowledge of the imperial family's hidden jewerly, a final betrayal that guaranteed her freedom and helped seal the fate of the prisioners."
King and Wilson cite as their source:  Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO,f. 41, op. 1, d. 149
According to King and Wilson both Gibbes and Gilliard questioned why Buxhoeveden was allowed to go free.
Apparently, by revealing the secret of the jewels, she secured her own freedom. I find it curious that the interrogation was not mentioned in her writings.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 07:30:45 PM
Quote
Right, Hikaru.  People snuck the money in from outside.  The difficulty Romanov supporters and friends encountered in raising the money and smuggling it into the city makes it even more tragic.

But I think that the money was sent to her in Tobolsk, not Ekaterinburg, now that I think about it.  Not that this changes much.


Hikaru,

Please assist me in disputing the technical inaccuracy of the above-referenced post.

1. "the difficult Romanov supporters encountered in raising the money".

   a.  The Romanov supporters, of which at that particular moment in time there were relatively few, did not indeed need to engage in fundraising activities.  While the financial system was in ruin, personal fortunes had NOT yet completely been nationalized (1918) and the very, very rich remained if not very, very rich, then just rich, at least privately.  The great large collections of works of arts and works of literature, as well as the other means of wealth (1918) had yet to be fully confiscated, although the uneducated mobs destroyed a certain portion of it on a continuing basis. The banks continued to function, albeit chaotically, in the larger cities (1918), and the trains, such as there were, ran, but irregularly, and by all reports, with the exception of the pillaging and looting and the murder of the educated classes by the Godless hordes, life in the larger cities, where the "Romanov supporters" were still quartered, continued in a rather humdrum, if not chaotic and strikebound pace.  I would refer all to Chaliapin's memoires on this subject.

      b.  Those wealthy families that could have been of assistance to the Imperial Family had, with the exception of the Yussopovs, become estranged from it.  The Apraxines and the Obolenskys and the Sheremetivi were all "refroidis".  The Tatishevi, who were ardent supporters to the end, possessed no great wealth as neither did the Troubetkois and thus would not have been in a position to assist the Imperial Family.  The Galitzini, whose wealth was only second to the Yussopovi, had placed much distance in their relationships with the Imperial Family because of their feelings towards the Empress. The Imperial Family drew only limited support from the remaining middles classes in 1918 and their financial resources would have been so limited, as a result of the war and the ensuing hyperinflation, as to preclude any form of financial assistance.  The Church was in a measure to provide assistance but such records as there are have not come to light.

2.  One did not "smuggle" money into a tightly-controlled city the way one goes to market.  There existed a form of "propicka" for entry into the city and many, many, many persons were not allowed nor granted the Revolutionary equivalent of the "propicka".  The Red were quite aware of class distinctions and regularly either expelled, or refused, entry or executed others.

3.  It comes to mind that the only source of such great sums of money might have been the British Royal Family and thus the British Legation in Petersburg.  It also comes to mind that perhaps the Kaiser might have helped financially and that funds might have been transferred through the Swedish Legation which was still functioning.

    Thus, Hikaru and Belochka, FormAdm, are you aware of any now declassified files in the British archives which could or might confirm that that the British government (under Lloyd George) or the Windsors forwarded money to the Royal Family?  And even if the British Royal Family had forwarded money, privately, would that not have had to be done with the consent of Cabinet?

Thus, in closing, I can only say that this was not a fundraising even in an American fashion and that one did simpy not hop on a train and go to Tobolsk and say "Well, Your Majesty, Here is 10,000 gold rubles".  It is important that the readers and posters on this forum bear that in mind.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Finelly on August 07, 2005, 07:32:09 PM
These are very, very serious allegations.  
 
And since they are serious allegations, in Western countries, the burden of proof is not up the accused to proove his or her innonence but upon the accuser to proove the culpability of the accuser.  
 
If one cannot prove such accusations, when they are set forth in writing, around here it is called label.


The term is "libel", not "label".

One of the foremost rights guaranteed to all citizens is freedom of expression.  There are few limits to this freedom and one of the only ones is that of defamation against another person which causes him or her to lose reputation and/or financial benefits.

In both the United States and Great Britain, deference is given to the publisher of the statements which are alleged to be libelous.  in other words, the burden of proof is on the person claiming to have been libelled.  The presumption is that the person who wrote the offending statements is not guilty of libel unless proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have acted with MALICE.

Opinion or a belief in the veracity of the statement is an absolute defense to any charge of malice.  In addition, a dead person cannot sue for libel.  Nor can his or her descendants.

In the instant case, two prominent experts on Romanov history, Penny Wilson and Greg King have researched the entire Romanov Imperial Family period of incarceration in Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg.  In doing their research, they accessed numerous hitherto undiscovered, unexplored archives in Russia.  Their conclusions regarding the Baroness are set forth in their book The Fate of the Romanovs, a heavy tome which not only presents a detailed and well-researched narrative of the facts, but provides endless pages of sources and footnotes.  

Should anyone attempt to file a claim of defamation of character on behalf of the Baroness, that person would be laughed out of court. She is not only dead, but the statements about her in the book are backed up by witness statements made in Russia, by eye-witnesses.

Furthermore, Message Boards of the instant kind are created and maintained for the express purpose of allowing individuals to post and express their opinions and conclusions regarding matters of interest.   One should not expect otherwise.  
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 07:35:22 PM
Quote
AlexP - reread the whole thread - King and Wilson in their book Fate of the Romanovs raise the point that Buxhoeveden was less than totally loyal to the family - in other words, she worried about herself abit also (and how can blame her??).  I don't have it in front of me now, but I also recall that they spoke about the Baroness not paying back Gibbes.  FOTR is well sourced - I think you'll see their whole hypothis there.

dca


I am sure that it is well-sourced.  It is nonetheless a compilation, and a compilation that is written nearly 100 years after the facts.  Additionally, it is a book that is meant to be bought and to be sold and to make money for its authors.  It is, so to speak, an example of American business.  It is not a neutral "coroner's report" into an accident nor is it an an article in a obscure presenting serious facts in a scholarly journal.  It is a book, if you excuse me, intended for the masses, and to a certain extent, to assure a comfortable lifestyle to its authors.  It was not a doctoral dissertation presented to the Russian Academy of Sciences and accepted by it.  And frankly, I am not sure that if had been written as a doctoral dissertation in its present form and presented to for acceptance, that it would have been accepted.  And yes, I have read the book, which I find to be a secondary and tertiary source of information, And yes, I have read the entire thread, than you.

A.A.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on August 07, 2005, 07:52:11 PM
You raise interesting and valid questions.  Without becoming a commentary on FOTR (there has been plenty of that on other threads) can you speak to your knowledge on this subject.  I guess I think it is possible (likely) that those close to the IF can (and did) 'sell them out' (for lack of a better term) to save their own lives.  Buxhoeveden is as much of a candidate for that as anyone else I'd think.  And Greg & Penny put an enormous amount of time and effort into that book - to the best of my knowledge nothing has been unproven as of yet.  But your points are well taken - that book was written for the 'masses' - but that doesn't mean that it is in anyway inaccurate.

In a very short period of time you have provided a great deal of new (atleast to me) and wonderful information.  Can you speak to the source of your knowledge?  Your writing strikes me as highly thought out, very knowledable, and plenty deep - what is your background?

By the way, I am very much enjoying your posts - as I reread my last message I don't think that came through.

dca
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 07:55:02 PM
Quote
Here is what I found in FOTR.
PP. 148
"Unknown to both of these men, (Gibbes and Gilliard) and ignoared by Buxhoeveden in her memoirs, was her interrogation that afternoon. A few members of the Ural Regional Soviet and Eakterinburg Cheka entered the railroad coach where she waited alone, questioning her at length about her revelations to Rodionov aboard the Rus. During the sessionm, Buxhoeveden repeated her knowledge of the imperial family's hidden jewerly, a final betrayal that guaranteed her freedom and helped seal the fate of the prisioners." King and Wilson cite as their source:  Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO,f. 41, op. 1, d. 149
According to King and Wilson both Gibbes and Gilliard questioned why Buxhoeveden was allowed to go free.
Apparently, by revealing the secret of the jewels, she secured her own freedom. I find it curious that the interrogation was not mentioned in her writings.


Lexi4, Thank you for the post but this is an exact example to which I am referring.  Penny and King quote someone else who has quoted someone who has quoted someone else.

1. "Waited coach alone".  Did the guards of the coach write their memoires?  Was there an inspection performed on who was in the coach and by whom?  Was Bykov personally at the scene?

2. "Her revelations to Rodionov".  Were these revelations taken down in long-form by a secretary?  Were they formalized?  Is there any reason to believe that they may NOT be spurious?  Does a written copy of these "revelations" still exist?  Has the copy been authenticated?  Did she sign her "revelations"?

3.  As for the "jewlery assertions", were these taken down by a secretary?  Is there undisputable evidence or are we to believe a group of murdering, lieing, plundering Boshelviks?  Consider the characters, please, of those "indisputable" sources.

As I said, excuse the pen, this is not a scholarly work.  It is meant for reading by the masses in the heartlands of the United States after dinner.  It is not an inculpation.  It is history for the masses.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 07:58:09 PM
Quote
You raise interesting and valid questions.  Without becoming a commentary on FOTR (there has been plenty of that on other threads) can you speak to your knowledge on this subject.

In a very short period of time you have provided a great deal of new (atleast to me) and wonderful information.  Can you speak to the source of your knowledge?  Your writing strikes me as highly thought out, very knowledable, and plenty deep - what is your background.


Dominc, thank you very much.  No, quite frankly, I did indeed and do indeed continue to enjoy your postings.   I will be in contact with you to answer your questions.

dca
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 08:04:42 PM
Quote
These are very, very serious allegations.  
  
And since they are serious allegations, in Western countries, the burden of proof is not up the accused to proove his or her innonence but upon the accuser to proove the culpability of the accuser.  
  
If one cannot prove such accusations, when they are set forth in writing, around here it is called label.

 
The term is "libel", not "label".
 
One of the foremost rights guaranteed to all citizens is freedom of expression.  There are few limits to this freedom and one of the only ones is that of defamation against another person which causes him or her to lose reputation and/or financial benefits.

In both the United States and Great Britain, deference is given to the publisher of the statements which are alleged to be libelous.  in other words, the burden of proof is on the person claiming to have been libelled.  The presumption is that the person who wrote the offending statements is not guilty of libel unless proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have acted with MALICE.
 
Opinion or a belief in the veracity of the statement is an absolute defense to any charge of malice.  In addition, a dead person cannot sue for libel.  Nor can his or her descendants.
 
In the instant case, two prominent experts on Romanov history, Penny Wilson and Greg King have researched the entire Romanov Imperial Family period of incarceration in Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg.  In doing their research, they accessed numerous hitherto undiscovered, unexplored archives in Russia.  Their conclusions regarding the Baroness are set forth in their book The Fate of the Romanovs, a heavy tome which not only presents a detailed and well-researched narrative of the facts, but provides endless pages of sources and footnotes.  
 
Should anyone attempt to file a claim of defamation of character on behalf of the Baroness, that person would be laughed out of court. She is not only dead, but the statements about her in the book are backed up by witness statements made in Russia, by eye-witnesses.
 
Furthermore, Message Boards of the instant kind are created and maintained for the express purpose of allowing individuals to post and express their opinions and conclusions regarding matters of interest.   One should not expect otherwise.  



I refer the above-mentioned poster to the fact this is an International Bulletin Board and thus we are not limited in our concepts to American jurisprudence.  Additionally, as perhaps the  above-mentioned poster is not aware, in European countries, in Russia, in China, in Japan, and in India, thus in those countries accouting for nearly 95% of the people in the world, the legal systems hold defamation and libel to be otherwise that the above-mentioned poster has set forth.  In the European countries, and in modern Russia, in particular, the onus is upon the person setting forth the libellous and defamatory remarks to establish their credence beyond a shadow of any doubt.  Magazines and publications in these countries regularly have to retract inflammatory comments and pay large fines. And in many cases, libellous comments upon deceased family members have also been held to be libellous.

So, all, let's try to remember the international scope of this Forum.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Forum Admin on August 07, 2005, 08:08:03 PM
I do know that some money from the Emperor's personal funds were transferred to them in Tobolsk. After that, un named friends did send more money. Now, the suite also had about 150000 rubles hidden among them for the IF (see Volkov).  Don't forget that there was also a huge scam going at this time, raising money for the "Emperor's support and escape" but not a kopeck ended up going there (see Volkov again).  As for whether Baroness B. did "sell out the IF" remains to be seen, but not for sure. The real truth is that the Bolsheviks found NONE of the IF's jewels until their murder, and the genuine bulk not found until 1933, and more sent out of the country hidden in their remaining luggage;  so even  "if" Baroness B. made such a revelation, the Bolsheviks really made no profit from it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, she told them "what they wanted to hear" to save herself, without really giving up the genuine secrets of the jewels. My two cents.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 08:12:32 PM
Quote
I do know that some money from the Emperor's personal funds were transferred to them in Tobolsk. After that, un named friends did send more money. Now, the suite also had about 150000 rubles hidden among them for the IF (see Volkov).  Don't forget that there was also a huge scam going at this time, raising money for the "Emperor's support and escape" but not a kopeck ended up going there (see Volkov again).  As for whether Baroness B. did "sell out the IF" remains to be seen, but not for sure. The real truth is that the Bolsheviks found NONE of the IF's jewels until their murder, and the genuine bulk not found until 1933, and more sent out of the country hidden in their remaining luggage;  so even  "if" Baroness B. made such a revelation, the Bolsheviks really made no profit from it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, she told them "what they wanted to hear" to save herself, without really giving up the genuine secrets of the jewels. My two cents.



Thank you FormAdm.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 07, 2005, 08:21:45 PM
AlexP,
I do not know what the Baroness did or did not do and by quoting Wilson and King, I am merely bringing it to the board for discussion. I do this in hopes that others, who have information will share. Alex, you make excellent points. Penny and Greg site their sources, but of course, I do not have access to those documents. So all I can rely on is books written for the masses and hope that those of you who have more information will post what you have.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on August 07, 2005, 08:33:38 PM
FA - wasn't there also a relative of Rasputin's who was collecting money to "save the IF" but ended up keeping it himself?  I'm thinking it was one of Rasputin's Son-in-Law's, but I'm pretty hazy on this....

And I think we are saying almost the same thing on Buxhoeveden - many of us would do about anything to save our hide in a pitch - perhaps thats what she did - but as you say, this could have simply been a diversion...

One other thing comes to mind - And again, I could be off here, but wasn't there problems between GD Xenia and Buxhoeveden??

dca
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 07, 2005, 09:53:19 PM
You are correct Dominic. It was his daughter. Alexandra had much faith in her, from what I have read.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Finelly on August 07, 2005, 10:38:47 PM
Actually, Soloviev, the son-in-law of Rasputin, may not have been as nefarious as one thinks.  He gave the money to the Baroness and was shocked that she kept it.......for many years, everyone thought he had not given it to her.

As for Xenia, she absolutely refused to receive the Baroness after the Revolution and sent a number of letters to Victoria Milford Haven warning her that the Baroness had betrayed the Rs.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 07, 2005, 10:58:36 PM
Quote
Actually, Soloviev, the son-in-law of Rasputin, may not have been as nefarious as one thinks.  He gave the money to the Baroness and was shocked that she kept it.......for many years, everyone thought he had not given it to her.

As for Xenia, she absolutely refused to receive the Baroness after the Revolution and sent a number of letters to Victoria Milford Haven warning her that the Baroness had betrayed the Rs.


Yes, the Grand Duchess Xenia so detested Baroness von Buxhoeveden, that in her great contempt, she was kind enough to arrange for the issuance of her "droit-de-sejour" in Great Britain and that the Duchess of Milford Haven had the poor taste to both assist the Baroness in securing some form of sinecure and that in November 1956 relatives of the Duchess of M.H. attended Mme. von B.'s funeral in the Russian Church in London (a quite well-attended funeral actually).

Again, as for a previous posting, it is additionally judgmental based upon a compilation of a compilation of a compilation.  As you wish, however.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 09, 2005, 12:39:31 AM
Now I am very curious about her, but can find nothing written about her. Does anyone know of any books are articles I can read? I find it curious that there seems to be so little about her.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on August 09, 2005, 11:29:33 AM
Quote
I can also confirm that one could buy freedom from the Red soldiers.  Tante Lilly's mother bought her brother George's freedom right off the prison train in Kidslovosk for 2,000 gold rubles.


But even then they could not be trusted Anna Vyrubova reported that even when paid off, they were known to still rat you out. Sometimes even the people helping you escape would do the same. So you were always taking a chance.

Sometimes Red soldiers have to be bribed, and often they sell out the people whose money they accept. Sometimes also the men who contract to take refugees over the ice betray their passengers to the Bolshevik guards. Any way you look at it, escape from Bolshevik Russia is about as perilous as going unarmed into a tiger's cage. Yet people dare it, and we did.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 09, 2005, 11:30:34 PM
Quote

But even then they could not be trusted Anna Vyrubova reported that even when paid off, they were known to still rat you out. Sometimes even the people helping you escape would do the same. So you were always taking a chance.

Sometimes Red soldiers have to be bribed, and often they sell out the people whose money they accept. Sometimes also the men who contract to take refugees over the ice betray their passengers to the Bolshevik guards. Any way you look at it, escape from Bolshevik Russia is about as perilous as going unarmed into a tiger's cage. Yet people dare it, and we did.


A Spanish saying comes to minds about Vryubova's quote on all of this : "le dijo el loro al cuervo".
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on August 10, 2005, 12:42:06 AM
Quote

A Spanish saying comes to minds about Vryubova's quote on all of this : "le dijo el loro al cuervo".


Which translates in English to ....?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 10, 2005, 05:28:50 AM
Quote

Which translates in English to ....?


"And thus the crow said to the raven".

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on August 10, 2005, 09:40:40 PM
Spasibo Alex!  :)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2005, 12:13:08 PM
Quote
This is such an interesting discussion.  My basic problem with Baroness Buxhoeveden is that I just can't see why she was released and others weren't.
Countess Hendrikova and Mlle Schneider were both imprisoned and shot, yet Isa was simply set free.  Am I correct in thinking that her excuse was that the Soviets considered her to be a foreign national?


I think Buxhoevenden's release and escape is what bothers most people.   Why would the Reds let her go?  If you are looking for an answer,  you can find this was not an uncommon occurance with the Reds.   It was one of their methods of "divide and conquer".   To make it appear someone has revealed secrets and then release them, like they did Buxhoevenden, and in doing so this created doubt in the minds of many and still does to this day.  Therefore, this proves this kind of method works.

If you do not wish to give the Reds credit for being that smart, then, you can fall back on the fact that nothing during that time was always logical or made any sense.  The Reds shot over the smallest of infractions and sometimes let a man guilty of a crime just walk away for who know what reason.

Perhaps if there was dislike of her among the Romanovs, each person who dislike her may have each had their own reasons.  Perhaps it would be best to name each individual and discuss the facts around each individual's reason.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Forum Admin on August 18, 2005, 02:06:10 PM
Well, Bear, don't forget they released Vyroubova and let her go as well.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2005, 07:02:49 PM
Quote
Well, Bear, don't forget they released Vyroubova and let her go as well.


I am not sure what you are telling me.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Forum Admin on August 18, 2005, 08:08:15 PM
That the Bolsheviks let people go for unknowable reasons. No one, but  NO one was closer to Alexanda than Anya A. yet they let her go scot free. No one ever accused AA of giving away secrets or betraying the IF. So, why should they accuse Sophie B?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 19, 2005, 11:54:30 AM
Quote
That the Bolsheviks let people go for unknowable reasons. No one, but  NO one was closer to Alexanda than Anya A. yet they let her go scot free. No one ever accused AA of giving away secrets or betraying the IF. So, why should they accuse Sophie B?


Dear Rob,

What you write is actually very true.

There are von Buxhoeveden archives still extant, however, and they are in both Cherry Hills, NJ and in New York City with the surviving direct descedants of the Baroness.  I am not aware, however if they have been consulted, or even if the family would allow it.

But as to your point, indeed.

By all signs of the time, Anna Vyrubova should have been shot on-the-spot.

By all signs of the time, Sophie von Buxhoevedent should have been shot on-the-spot.

As a general rule, the Bolsheviks liquidated the courtiers first and asked questions later, if ever.

The had to know who Vyurbova was.  Everyone in Piter knew who was Vryubova was.  She was probably almost as hated as Rapustin, and slightly less than Kerensky, and was surely blamed for every evil possible.  So what indeed was the trade-off?  And why was she allowed to escape?  And once she escaped into the emigration in Finland, why was she not tracked down there and liquidated in the same manner the Bolsheviks liquidated so many in Paris and in Prague and in Belgrade?  There MUST have had to have been a trade-off.  But what was it?  And what could she have traded up?

As for the Baroness, I write the same questions.  Vryubova may have the closest to the Empress, but she was despised even by the rest of the Camarilla.  The Baroness was more innocuous and would have learned much than even Vryubova, albeit unwittingly so.  So what was the trade-off here? What did she offer up?  The jewels...I don't think so personally...the NKVD writes that they were already known about...did she know something about a  possiblity of foreign exile that was not mentioned elsewhere?  And then why did the Home Office in London grant her "droit-de-sejour" in England when it refused so many other Russian nobles and court people?  What exactly did she bring with her to London or have shipped to London?  This indeed is not a small question, dear all, but a very, very valid one.

Indeed, let's discuss this.  It truly merits close scrutiny.

With all of the best from Shanghai,


A.A.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 19, 2005, 12:29:36 PM
Alex, yes, it is an intrigue, is it not ? Why was Anya V. spared?  The Baroness I have no sympathy for, perhaps my own prejudices as well as the information from FOTR. But Anya, yes was so despised, how and why did she get away ? Her book is a trifle and hardly reveals anything and her subsequent life was uneventful as far as I know. She displayed no wealth, and lived in quiet obscurity- not seeking nor even wanting attention. Did the Soviets realize that she was a simple, foolish woman of no worth to them ? They eliminated others with less claim to connections with the IF.
Curious how she escaped the "wrath of the masses".

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 19, 2005, 12:45:17 PM
Quote
Alex, yes, it is an intrigue, is it not ? Why was Anya V. spared?  The Baroness I have no sympathy for, perhaps my own prejudices as well as the information from FOTR. But Anya, yes was so despised, how and why did she get away ? Her book is a trifle and hardly reveals anything and her subsequent life was uneventful as far as I know. She displayed no wealth, and lived in quiet obscurity- not seeking nor even wanting attention. Did the Soviets realize that she was a simple, foolish woman of no worth to them ? They eliminated others with less claim to connections with the IF.
Curious how she escaped the "wrath of the masses".



I feel bad personally when I read about how others feel about the Baroness, particularly for family reasons.  I have taken the authors of FOTR to task on this subject and simply have not energy to do it.  The Baroness makes an easy, if not quite dead, subject to snipe at, if you excuse me, in order to sell a book.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, please, please a good author will discard all of the secondary and tertiary sources, except as leads perhaps, and rely on primary sources of information.  Has anyone located the transcription of the Baronesss's "enqueta" that surely made by the Cheka?  If not the original, which may have been lost, there may be references and allusions to it in other sources.

As for the Vrubova, she just couldn't have simply escaped through Russia the way one catches the BART in San Francisco.  What did she exactly give up?  Probably only her Father Confessor in the Russian Church in Helsinki knew that answer and has anyone bothered to find the family of that Father Confessor and ask the daugther or the granddaugther?

But regardless of my personal feelings, there must have been a trade-off in the cases of both the women.  I do not believe the Vryubova to have been  a fool, but rather a sinister, plotting creature who somehow fantasized about controlling the Empire through Alexandra.  And all of the madness in Petersburg in the late 1915-1916-early 1917 period seems to confirm this.  She and Rasputin made and unmade governments at will through the Empress.

With all of the best from Shanghai,


A.A.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on August 20, 2005, 12:07:06 AM
As for "droit - de- sejour" in England.
At present, everybody could get the passport of England if he would buy a company or something in England amount to quite big  00000000.
Why Baroness got it?
Maybe she had already an real estate in England or big amount in the bank?

But I understand that she came to Copenhagen first.
So , maybe she got the England's permission through Marie Feodorovna, who was her god mother?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 20, 2005, 01:09:10 AM
Quote
Alex, yes, it is an intrigue, is it not ? Why was Anya V. spared?  The Baroness I have no sympathy for, perhaps my own prejudices as well as the information from FOTR. But Anya, yes was so despised, how and why did she get away ? Her book is a trifle and hardly reveals anything and her subsequent life was uneventful as far as I know. She displayed no wealth, and lived in quiet obscurity- not seeking nor even wanting attention. Did the Soviets realize that she was a simple, foolish woman of no worth to them ? They eliminated others with less claim to connections with the IF.
Curious how she escaped the "wrath of the masses".



I  agree Robert. Although Anya is really a topic for another thread, I think that when they interrogated her they realized she was merely  fool and not worth their time.
Also, I believe AA refused to meet with the Baroness because she said the Baroness had betrayed her family. So the idea of the Baroness' betrayal has been out there long before FOTR was written. I think FOTR is just further confirmation of the idea that the Baroness betrayed the IF. People can be very deceptive.  We've seen that in history as well as here on the board
Not to be too harsh on her, I don't know what I would have done in that situation so I don't want to be judgmental.
As for FOTR, I think it is a well researched book and is full of cites and sources inclduing primary sources. If there is evidence that contradicts the information found in FOTR, evidence and not speculation, I would like to see it too.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 20, 2005, 01:45:23 AM
Quote
As for "droit - de- sejour" in England.
At present, everybody could get the passport of England if he would buy a company or something in England amount to quite big  00000000.
Why Baroness got it?
 Maybe she had already an real estate in England or big amount in the bank?

But I understand that she came to Copenhagen first.
So , maybe she got the England's permission through Marie Feodorovna, who was her god mother?


Dear Hikarushka,

Regarding the Baroness's "droit-de-sejor" in England, she did not possess any great sums in a British bank, or at least I do not believe so, and she did not invest in British companies.  My contention is that it was arranged for her very handily when she arrived there...by an emince grise.

That is why the story is NOT complete, far from it.

With all the best,


A.A.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 20, 2005, 01:49:38 AM
Quote

I  agree Robert. Although Anya is really a topic for another thread, I think that when they interrogated her they realized she was merely  fool and not worth their time.
Also, I believe AA refused to meet with the Baroness because she said the Baroness had betrayed her family. So the idea of the Baroness' betrayal has been out there long before FOTR was written. I think FOTR is just further confirmation of the idea that the Baroness betrayed the IF. People can be very deceptive.  We've seen that in history as well as here on the board
Not to be too harsh on her, I don't know what I would have done in that situation so I don't want to be judgmental.
As for FOTR, I think it is a well researched book and is full of cites and sources inclduing primary sources. If there is evidence that contradicts the information found in FOTR, evidence and not speculation, I would like to see it too.



Dear Lexi4,

Your comments on deception are quite accurate in my little opinion.  One of the major flaws of human nature, I would say.

I don't follow the Forum on the FOTR, as that is another forum indeed, a bit like Anya, so I don't know what the general take of the readers on this Board is.  I am sure that we all can agree that everyone is entitled to his or her own take of a subject without being subject to the general rule of all.

As for the betrayal, I refer all to my previous comments in an earlier posting.  The bottom line remains : "What was the trade-off"?

With all the best and thank you for your thought-provoking posting,


A.A.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 20, 2005, 02:24:17 AM
Perhaps the trade-off was her life and her freedom.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on August 20, 2005, 02:44:54 AM
Quote
... So the idea of the Baroness' betrayal has been out there long before FOTR was written.  .... People can be very deceptive.  We've seen that in history as well as here on the board


The term "deception" is a very strong expression to employ. The very idea that such behavior was perceived to exist, would raise many fundamental issues about motive.

Lexi4,

Are you able to provide us with primary sources which you were good enough to suggest had existed; in order to support your interesting contention?

Thanks in anticipation.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on August 20, 2005, 04:03:24 AM
I was just thinking, that even if Sofia said about treasures or gave them some  , she could be easily murdered. ( I do not think , if somebody could keep their
word, so seriously. Even White Army did not do it in some cases)

But she was not murdered.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 20, 2005, 04:31:57 AM
Quote
I was just thinking, that even if Sofia said about treasures or gave them some  , she could be easily murdered. ( I do not think , if somebody could keep their
word, so seriously. Even White Army did not do it in some cases)

But she was not murdered.



Dear Hikaru,

You READ my mind.  This is what I have been thinking of over dinner.

I would venture to say that it is a KNOWN fact that the earliest elements of the CHEKA were not from the higher levels of Russian society, and I am being polite here so as not to anger one.

Given that they shot the old Mme Naryshkina at 90 years of age on-the-stop with no reason; given that they shot an entire branch of the Prince and Princess Mechersky family in the part of the Ukraine that they occupied with no reason; given that they shot the old debilitated Count Fredericks with no reason; given that they liquidated 25% (twenty-five percent) of the City of Omsk after taking it from the Kolchakii with no apparent reason; etc., etc., and given their LONG list of hideous crimes against the Russian people, the Church, the landed gentry, and just about anybody that they could get their hands on, including eventually liquidating each other, frankly, you are 100% correct...they could have shot her on-the-spot, as I keep saying.

And before continuing, the theory that the Vryubova passed herself as a harmless fool would not have fooled THEM for one Petersburg second as all of Russia by that point knew of her and the Camarilla of the final years -- that is just a convenient middle-class cover story, far from the truth, I believe.

So what did they offer up that was so major.

This is what I want to speculate on and ask your opinions.

1.  I would venture that Buxhoeveden was carrying or was part of knew of supplemental offers of asylum for the Imperial Family -- perhaps Canada, perhaps Ireland, perhaps South Africa, perhaps even Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Cuba -- all of it arranged by the British Secret Service -- or even perhaps, at its worst, an offer of asylum in Germany, or perhaps Sweden or Norway under German aegis.  The Baroness would have know the Legates and the Ambassadors -- they would have know her.  She was a far less contentious figure politically than the Vryubova and would have appeared to the Reds as the little lady doing petit-point.

     Or, and again I postulate, Nicholas and Alexandra would have provided her secretly with a list of the numbers of the numbered Tsarist bank accounts in Switzerland, and in London, and such other accounts as were in New York and San Francisco, which funds might have been used to buy their safety and that the Baroness was charged with this mission -- of getting to the West, with a "fonde de pouvoir" (accent on the e) and arranging these matters with the Imperial Ambassadors still in place, say Sazanov, for example.

3.  In terms of the Vryubova, I postulate that it might have been either one of the above, with the offers of rescue and safety being more likely.

Indeed, they would have not just exchanged information and then released these "damii" -- this is what I think escapes our modern readers.  AGRBear writes that this was a common practice in order to sully the person by the Cheka, etc., in the eyes of the others, but I am sorry, I politely disgree. They wouldn't have had to sully these two -- they simply would have shot them.

4.  Which comes back in my opinion to the really astute question raised by Hikaru -- how did the Baroness come by her "droit de sejour" in England when so many of the high nobility were refused "droit de sejour" in England?  Hikaru mentioned that at that point in time it was possible to "buy" a "droit de sejour" in England (a point that I cannot ascertain in 1919, so I would ask Hikaru to confirm where this idea comes from)..but if we postulate that a "droit de sejour" could be had for pounds sterling 100,000 in 1919, and if know for a fact that the Baroness had no evident source of income at all (she was not primogeniture in her own family), would it not be possible that the Baroness availed herself of this money from the Bank of England using one of the "fonde de pouvoir" that the Imperial Couple might have given her?

This is all speculation but I am trying to point our readers in what I think may be the right path for investigation.

With all of the best from Shanghai,



A.A.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: hikaru on August 20, 2005, 05:17:48 AM
As for the droit de sejour , I just tried to compare the situation of their times with ours ( Now, anybody could arrange the citizenship of England for a reasonable amount)

As for Baroness , I think that she was connected  with London in some cases. Maybe in Red Army those times were some people who were connected with them too.
(It is not more just personal thinking)

Or maybe she just gave to one Iwan big diamond and she were released.

Or Maybe Lenin decided to release her in order to begin with the West some  talks about the Release of an Empresse and girls .
He had to do it in order to make the West thinking that
he is ready to release the girls and mother.

So when West talked about possible release, Lenin
have got the opportunity and time to kill them.



Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Forum Admin on August 20, 2005, 09:30:14 AM
Sasha,

Permit a small correction, if I may. Freedericks was not shot, he was quite ill and very old, so they released him in a small show of uncharacteristic pity.  He died only about a month later at home.

You can read my translations of the Interrogations of Vyroubova and Freedericks on the AP mainpage, under Palace Archives.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 20, 2005, 10:34:02 AM
Quote
Sasha,

Permit a small correction, if I may. Freedericks was not shot, he was quite ill and very old, so they released him in a small show of uncharacteristic pity.  He died only about a month later at home.

You can read my translations of the Interrogations of Vyroubova and Freedericks on the AP mainpage, under Palace Archives.



Dear Rob,

Please correct.  I appreciate your help.  I am here in Shanghai working basically from memory, so forgive me.

There was another very, very, very old retainer at the Imperial Palace, please help me with his name, and he WAS taken out and shot, along with his wife.  Can you help me here?

And thanks for all your assistance.

A.A.

And yes, I will read the Interrogations.  That is great.  I am sorry that I didn't see them.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on August 20, 2005, 10:45:18 AM
Alex - you speculated that the Baroness might have known about Romanov assets in Switzerland, England or the United States.  If I've missed this someplace else i'm sorry but I thought that it had been pretty well established that the only Romanov money outside of Russia was in Germany and it was pretty much useless because of deflation at the end of WWI.  Have you read Clark's the Lost Fortune of the Tsar?

What are your thoughts on that?

Thanks for your information.

best,
dca
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 20, 2005, 11:26:00 AM
Quote

The term "deception" is a very strong expression to employ. The very idea that such behavior was perceived to exist, would raise many fundamental issues about motive.

Lexi4,

Are you able to provide us with primary sources which you were good enough to suggest had existed; in order to support your interesting contention?


Thanks in anticipation.

I am sorry I thought I had. Several posts over I cited FOTR. That is where the quote was from. I did not claim to have any sources other than that book. I merely said that the book was full of sources and cites. I must not have made myself clear. Please accept my apology. By the idea that she betrayed being out there for awhile, I was referring to AA's refusal to see the baroness saying she betrayed the family. I believe that was in Kurth, but again I could be wrong. If I am I stand corrected. I hope we all are held to to the same standard of posting our sources. I don't have a problem with that at all, but I do not want to be singled out. Others are speculating on this thread.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 20, 2005, 11:32:44 AM
Quote
Alex - you speculated that the Baroness might have known about Romanov assets in Switzerland, England or the United States.  If I've missed this someplace else i'm sorry but I thought that it had been pretty well established that the only Romanov money outside of Russia was in Germany and it was pretty much useless because of deflation at the end of WWI.  Have you read Clark's the Lost Fortune of the Tsar?

What are your thoughts on that?

Thanks for your information.



best,
dca



I am curious about this to Alex. Could you please cite your sources?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 20, 2005, 11:51:02 AM
 Belochka,
When I said the idea that there was a betray was not new, here it the passage from Kurth to which I was referring.
P 58 of the book.  "At Ekaterinburg", the Inspector Grunberg explained, a rescue of the imperial family had been planned which, however, as Anastasia claims, was betrayed to the Bolsheviks by the lady in waiting Baroness Buxhoeveden, in an attempt to save her own life."  Said Anastasia, "That there had been a betrayal was clear to us. We spoke about it often in prison.  And then....."  Anastasia herself had cut off that sentence.  Where had "Isa" been when they all needed her?  she asked, calling the Baroness by the nickname the imperial family had always used.
"I must always think how Papa and Mamma sat there in Ekaterinburg and said that they could not undersdtand why Isa had changecd so during the last time in Tobolsk.
I hope that clears thing up for you about my post.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 20, 2005, 06:32:06 PM
Quote
Belochka,
When I said the idea that there was a betray was not new, here it the passage from Kurth to which I was referring.
 P 58 of the book.  "At Ekaterinburg", the Inspector Grunberg explained, a rescue of the imperial family had been planned which, however, as Anastasia claims, was betrayed to the Bolsheviks by the lady in waiting Baroness Buxhoeveden, in an attempt to save her own life."  Said Anastasia, "That there had been a betrayal was clear to us. We spoke about it often in prison.  And then....."  Anastasia herself had cut off that sentence.  Where had "Isa" been when they all needed her?  she asked, calling the Baroness by the nickname the imperial family had always used.
"I must always think how Papa and Mamma sat there in Ekaterinburg and said that they could not undersdtand why Isa had changecd so during the last time in Tobolsk.
I hope that clears thing up for you about my post.


Since we know, now, that AA wasn't GD Anastasia,  and, she might have been FS, then how would she know anything about what Buxhovenden did in Ekaterinburg?

Perhaps,  this was some kind of pay back from the time Buxhoveden pulled AA out of bed and said she was too short to be Tatiana ....

It is my opinion that anything AA tells us about Buxhoveden be dismissed since it was impossible for her to know what Buxhoveden did at any time accept at their meeting in Dalldorf, and, then,  I would tend to believe Buxhoveden before AA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 20, 2005, 09:58:02 PM
Duh! Boy do I feel like and idiot. That is a very good point Bear and one I had not considered. Thank you.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on August 20, 2005, 11:59:18 PM
Quote

Since we know, now, that AA wasn't GD Anastasia,  and, she might have been FS, then how would she know anything about what Buxhovenden did in Ekaterinburg?
... It is my opinion that anything AA tells us about Buxhoveden be dismissed since it was impossible for her to know what Buxhoveden did AGRBear


Exactly Bear!!!

A pot of extra honey for you today. ;)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 21, 2005, 06:35:28 AM
Quote


I am curious about this to Alex. Could you please cite your sources?


Dear Lexi4,

Thank you for the question and your very kind comments which I note with intellectual enthousiasm.

Please read my posting that you are questioning once more.  Throughthis this posting I use the words "postulate", "postulate", etc., etc., I am only dealing in intellectual suppostions, be they mine or be they those of others.  I am not dealing in asbsolute moral certainties nor do I purport to be, not in this posting, anyway.

And please, please forgive me in advance, but your repeated e-mails requiring that "I cite my sources" are beginning to sound like the oft-repeated strong entreaties of another (now defunct) posteress.  Perhaps I misunderstand your tone and your true meaning.  So thus forgive me.  But note the differences I mentioned above.  In answering your questions, I endeavor to take as high of a high moral ground as I can, both in terms of politeness and in terms of respect to your questions.  If I have failed, forgive me.

As I said, I am not stipulating, I am postulating, in a manner of intellectual endeavor.  This being said, I shall attempt to answer Dominic's question about the finances of the Imperial Family, albeit in another thread.  In this thread we are dealing with the Baronnes von Buxhoeveden and I hope that we may refocus thereupon.

With all of the best from Shanghai,



A.A.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Lucien on August 22, 2005, 06:50:24 AM
Quote

I have no problem in having our research and conclusions challenged-it is, after all, how we learn things.  But, having given our evidence, I think if you want to responsibly challenge it you need to be more forthcoming.  Without hard evidence to the contrary, I'm not inclined to dismiss what we learned based on an unknown assertion.  So please share so we can assess which version is correct.

Greg King


I'm not quite sure as to your reply to Harald.Some people just will or can not give  what you call hard evidence on particulars,they just know.Where historians,authors have to go through research of some kind,others just know.

Is that not how some of the issues in books came/come about,you asked a question,they gave an answer,you relied on their accounts as they seemed very convincing.Others are just not to be questioned,they are better informed but don't put their knowledge on display,they are obliged not to give way.

Must be frustrating,to any author,but most to those that know better and don't like to see a certain person squandered.Hence Haralds post.As a reminder that not all that is published nescessarely reflects the truth,but just adds to sales.No offence intended.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on August 22, 2005, 07:31:39 AM
Quote
... not all that is published nescessarely reflects the truth,but just adds to sales.


A very astute comment Lucien.

We can be guided in different directions by numerous research publications, but no one can claim that they are fully appraised about any issues, unless they themselves created the event, and even then that person may be deluded in believing that they hold the only key.

The difficulty lies in having the ability to distinguish between those variables and knowing which path is the most plausible.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 10:49:08 AM
Like I've said many times,  I've never been a AA follower so I do need to ask questions about various subjects and would like sources because I do have the books where I can go find the facts and read the stuff in front of your fact  and the stuff behind your fact so I can get a better image of the events.

Unfortunantly,  Alex P. is not near the books and others don't own the books but if you can just give me a hint, maybe, I or others can find it and give the pages of the sources.

If I remember correctly, isn't it GD Xenia who is linked to reasons behind the "distrust" of Buxhovoden?  Do we know of any evidence GD Xenia had which caused this "distrust"?  It there is no evidence,  can someone  tell me if there was a reason GD Xenia might have become angery with Buxhovoden after her escape?  Were they ever really friends?  Or, did she always dislike Buxhovoden even before Nicholas II's abdication???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lexi4 on August 22, 2005, 09:43:04 PM
Quote
Like I've said many times,  I've never been a AA follower so I do need to ask questions about various subjects and would like sources because I do have the books where I can go find the facts and read the stuff in front of your fact  and the stuff behind your fact so I can get a better image of the events.

Unfortunantly,  Alex P. is not near the books and others don't own the books but if you can just give me a hint, maybe, I or others can find it and give the pages of the sources.

If I remember correctly, isn't it GD Xenia who is linked to reasons behind the "distrust" of Buxhovoden?  Do we know of any evidence GD Xenia had which caused this "distrust"?  It there is no evidence,  can someone  tell me if there was a reason GD Xenia might have become angery with Buxhovoden after her escape?  Were they ever really friends?  Or, did she always dislike Buxhovoden even before Nicholas II's abdication???

AGRBear

Thank you Bear. That is exactly why I ask for sources.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AlexP on August 22, 2005, 11:05:57 PM
Quote

I'm not quite sure as to your reply to Harald.Some people just will or can not give  what you call hard evidence on particulars,they just know.Where historians,authors have to go through research of some kind,others just know.

Is that not how some of the issues in books came/come about,you asked a question,they gave an answer,you relied on their accounts as they seemed very convincing.Others are just not to be questioned,they are better informed but don't put their knowledge on display,they are obliged not to give way.

Must be frustrating,to any author,but most to those that know better and don't like to see a certain person squandered.Hence Haralds post.As a reminder that not all that is published nescessarely reflects the truth,but just adds to sales.No offence intended.


Dear Lucien,

Thank you very much for your very kind answer.   This is exactly why I do not always demand secondary and tertiary sources but remain aware of the value of the primary sources written in Russian which are always available to Russian-speakers and particularly to those who enjoy serious intellectual endeavour.  I often think it would be helpful if persons seeking an in-depth and reliable knowledge of events of Russian history actually made an effort to learn the Russian language and go out and read the primary sources for themselves.  Demanding ad infinitim that people list secondary and tertiary is demonstrates an overall need for an improvement in one's scholarly erudition.  But that is just my opinion.

As to AGRBear, sorry, but the primary sources are readily available to me.  Great Mother Russia is just two hours away on a very reasonable plane ride from Beijing and I can, and do, come and go easily.

Now that since this discussion has been so thoroughly dragged off-topic, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps you may consider opening another Forum to discuss secondary-and-tertiary sources under a separate rubric.

Otherwise can please return to discussing the Baroness von Buxhoeveden and discuss the value of sources in another forum?

I hope that will be amenable to all.  After all, this is the Bushoeveden forum.  I for one will strictly stick to Buxhoeveden hereinafter and not focus on off-topic postings.  Let's move the intellectual part of the discussion forward.  The positions of each poster in this Forum are now sufficiently well-known to the others.

With all of the best from Shanghai,


A.A.

Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 05:59:30 PM
Apparently,  King and Wlson have collected informtion which gave them a negitive view of Buxhoveden.  Pages mention in the under "betrayal of Romanovs: 68-69,  141-43, 148, 265, 505.   Added to this is is "credibility of Ekaterinburg reports" folllowed by more page numbers.

p. 69

There is talk about money, a sum of 200,000 rubles,  being given  by a Makov to Buxhoeveden which someone claims did not reach Volkov and therefore didn't reach the IF while in Tobolsk

What was Volkov's fate?

p. 141

Buxhoevden said:  "We were prisioners and had to be passive."

p. 141-2

>>...Buxhoeveden had come under the penetrating gaze of the Bolsheviks, who suspected her in some unknown plot. 'Two searches of her apartment... presumably failed to disclose the hidden funds, but te increased pressure left Buxheveden in fear for her own welfare.<<

p. 142

Talks about Buxhoeveden on the boat Russ where Buxhoevenden went  to Rodionov whom  said  she told him about the royal jewels, where they were concealed and where other items could be found.

>>When the prisioners arrived in Ekaterinburg, women were questioned tht same day.  Like Buxhoeveden, Nikolaeva crumbled under presure, according to the Ural Regional Soviet member Pavel Bykov, "revealing were these things could be found.  Anna Romanova, who had arrived with Buxhoeveden in Tobolsk, also readily disclosed the secrets of the family she had served, she later married a Boshevik commissar...<<  

>>Acting out of fear, Buxhoeveden, neverthelesss guaranted her own safety on reaching the Urals.  Alone of the former imperial suit, she was not arrested and imprisioned but allowed first to live in a railroad coach at the station in Ekaterinburg, then to leave the Urals  unharmed with the members of the household.<<

>>Both Gillard and Gibbes later openly questioned how the baroness had managed to escape..."

p. 143

Wilson and King continue to d**n Buxhoeveden:  >>The Romanovs themselves apparently never learned the truth of their former lady-in-waiting's betrayal.<<

p. 505

Buxhoevenden was "expelled" from Ekaterenburg in June 1918 and left Siberia ....with a half dozen trunks of Romanov posessions.<<

And it is this page that the authors really strike hard at Buxhoeveden:  >>...Buxhoeveden was so intimaely involved in the betrayal of the Romanovs is starkly at odds with the lovingly devoted confidiante to the grand duchess.  Yet Buxhoevenden's actions in presumablly absconding with Soloviev's funs and her susequent revelations of the imperial family's hidden jewels were not aberrations.  While  still in Siberia, she borrowed 1,300 rubles from tutor Charles Sydney Gibbes, explaining that she would return the money..."  She later said she had never borrowed any money from Gibbes.  

Please note the word "presumabily" which I underlined.

Evidently, when the investigator Sokolov wanted in inerview Buxhoeveden she declined to see him.  On p. 506 it is the angry Sokolov who makes the comment:  "It is obviousl that her consience in regard to that period is not entirely clear."

Ahh,  here it is about GD Xenia who >>..fired off a number of angry letters to Victoria, warning that  the baroness was not to be trusted.  Buxhoeveden, she declared was guilty of treachery in Siberia, and Xenia consistently refused to receive her."

Was GD Xenia believing the gossips or did she have actually proof Buxhoeveden betrayed the IF?

I  believe she was receiving messages from Buxhoeveden several months after the Romanov boxes were sent to GD Xenia.  Buxhoeveden  told her where the jewels of Alexandra were in a certain box that had been sent by the Bolshviks.

Are you aware  that these certain jewels were never disclosed in any records?  Therefore,  we have no idea what jewels they were or their value.  They are briefly mentioned in William Clarke's THE LOST FORUNE OF THE TSARS p. 155.

When did GD Xenia send these angry letters?  Was there someone who had convinced her about Buxhoeveden's presumed betrayls?  Or, is there something else which we don't know about which  caused GD Xenia to become angry and begin to believe the worst of Buxhoeveden even if all there was was "rumors" and "gossip"?

I doubt that GD Xenia ever recieved any letters from the Reds telling her anything about Buxhoeveden.

If this is all the evidence there is,  I'm not sure painting a yelllow stripe down her back and burning a "t" into her memory is justified.  Why? I just have this feeling that is exactly what the Reds wanted people to believe.


If anyone may be guilty it  might be >>Anna Romanova, who had arrived with Buxhoeveden in Tobolsk, also readily disclosed the secrets of the family she had served, she later married a Boshevik commissar...<<  She remained in Russia.  However, it might be just as unfair to think she disclosed anything.

As for the so-called missing money,   we have no idea what happened to it.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Forum Admin on August 23, 2005, 08:35:24 PM
You asked Volkov's fate, and you can also read how Volkov had nothing but praise for Buxhoeveden, here in my translation of his memoirs:

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/volkov/volkov
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Joanna on September 04, 2005, 02:37:46 PM
Although it has been written of the controversy of money owed by Baroness Buxhoeveden and cynicism of the Gibbs family towards her, there is a reference in this article of a letter Charles Gibbs wrote to Baroness Buxhoeveden as late as 1941:

"...In 1941 when Gibbs has arrived in London, he was 65 years, and required the assistant. Later he tells some years about the position in the letter to Baroness Buksgevden: '... four years as I have invited the son Stolypin Minister of Agriculture ...to arrive to me from Sacred mountain Athos where it has lead 25 years the monk after end of training in Sorbonne... Father Vasily now the scientist with high enough name... For the second year of its arrival I have organized all for its dedication ... Then it has incured all the duties connected with a temple..."

http://www.tserkov.info/numbers/history/?ID=285

It appears the connection between C.Gibbs and Baroness Buxhoeveden continued in later years. It would be interesting to know more of their correspondence.

Joanna
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: felix on September 25, 2005, 05:06:32 PM
I read that they were still writing to each other in 1956,when Gibbes was about 80.  I may be wrong, but didnt
 Sophie die in 1956, or around there ?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on September 27, 2005, 01:48:15 AM
Quote
I read that they were still writing to each other in 1956,when Gibbes was about 80.  I may be wrong, but didnt
  Sophie die in 1956, or around there ?


I believe she did die in 1956.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Leuchtenberg on December 26, 2005, 03:08:23 PM
This is a rather old thread, but a question has popped into my mind.

Xenia sent numerous letters to Victoria Milford Haven warning her about Buxhoeveden.  What was Victoria's response to Xenia?  Did she ignore them or did she defend the Baroness to the Grand Duchess?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 26, 2005, 03:38:22 PM
Good question! I wouldn't be suprised if she didn't reply out of politeness. The Baroness did stay with Victoria until  her death in 1950 which is quite telling.  Maybe Victoria viewed her as a link to her deceased beloved sister and family... :-/
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on December 28, 2005, 03:27:19 AM
Quote
Good question! I wouldn't be suprised if she didn't reply out of politeness. The Baroness did stay with Victoria until  her death in 1950 which is quite telling.  Maybe Victoria viewed her as a link to her deceased beloved sister and family... :-/

Victoria M-H's correspondence which are no doubt in th Broadlands archive (or maybe in the Royal archives)would probably tellus more. Even more tanterlizingly many,many more questions would be answered if the Zahle archive was released by the Queen of Denmark. Quite why after 80+ years (and even the opening of the SOVIET archive) access to these files is still being denied is as great a mystery.Maybe next year after the Dowager Empresses body is returned to Russia there will be a change of heart by the danish court.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Leuchtenberg on December 28, 2005, 03:15:03 PM
The Zahle papers may be part of an agreement from reign to reign.  It is quite possible that at the time those files were placed in the Family archive, it was decided that they were to never been publicly released or perhaps until a specific date. QM may just be the guardian of   a decision  that was made decades ago.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on December 29, 2005, 12:29:08 PM
Sophie lived with Victoria MH? I didn't know that! When did she move in with her? I also thought she married Gibbes, she didn't?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Leuchtenberg on December 29, 2005, 06:41:13 PM
Quote
Sophie lived with Victoria MH? I didn't know that! When did she move in with her? I also thought she married Gibbes, she didn't?



The Baroness began with the Milford Havens some time in the 1920s.  Later, I believe during WWII she also had a cottage near Coppins and was a good friend of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on December 30, 2005, 08:23:07 AM
Quote


The Baroness began with the Milford Havens some time in the 1920s.  Later, I believe during WWII she also had a cottage near Coppins and was a good friend of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent.


That's interesting, thanks! What became of Gibbes, and did they never have a relationship?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on December 30, 2005, 08:36:05 AM
Quote


The Baroness began with the Milford Havens some time in the 1920s.  Later, I believe during WWII she also had a cottage near Coppins and was a good friend of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent.

During WW2,The kents lent a cottage on the Coppins demense to Prince & Princess Powlkelski-Koziell (spelling wrong).The Princesses mother baroness Agnes de Stockel lived with them.In her memoirs published in 1950 she spoke with great warmth of the late Duke and Princess Marina.The late Baron had been in charge of the household of Marie of Greece,Grand Duchess George of Russia(Marina's aunt).Are you sure you are not getting these 2 Baronesses mixed up?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on December 30, 2005, 08:42:36 AM
Quote

That's interesting, thanks! What became of Gibbes, and did they never have a relationship?

Gibbs ended up as an orthodox priest in Oxford.I think he called himself "Father Nicholas".He had an adopted son and together they safeguarded all the relics of the Imperial family he had so carefully guardrd on the long trek out of Siberia & during his long years in China.These included the light fitting from the Grand Duchesses bedroom in the Ipatiev House and their school books.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on December 30, 2005, 09:37:18 AM
When was he in China? After the Siberian trek, didn't he travel from Japan to Europe via the US like Sophie?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on December 30, 2005, 03:45:18 PM
Quote
When was he in China? After the Siberian trek, didn't he travel from Japan to Europe via the US like Sophie?

Gibbes worked in Manchuria (as a customs offical) till about 1934/5 when he was ordained as Father Nicholas.After a year in Jerusalem he came to London & during WW2 settled in Oxford. He died in hospital in London on 24th March 1963 age 86. There is a book about Gibbes "Tutor to the Tsarevich" by J C Trewin, published by Macmillan in England. (ISBN333171020).It is full of pictures of the tutors mementoes etc.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on December 31, 2005, 12:24:01 PM
So did he stay on in China when the others left, or did he return at a later date?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on December 31, 2005, 01:51:27 PM
Quote
So did he stay on in China when the others left, or did he return at a later date?

He seems to have stayed on with at least one home leave.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on December 31, 2005, 02:04:33 PM
I know he took a lot of pictures on their journey, I thought he was with them when they crossed the US by train?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on January 01, 2006, 02:53:20 AM
Quote
Gibbes worked in Manchuria (as a customs offical) till about 1934/5 when he was ordained as Father Nicholas.After a year in Jerusalem he came to London & during WW2 settled in Oxford. He died in hospital in London on 24th March 1963 age 86. There is a book about Gibbes "Tutor to the Tsarevich" by J C Trewin, published by Macmillan in England. (ISBN333171020).It is full of pictures of the tutors mementoes etc.

The book is worth reading, though only short.You should be able to order a copy through your library.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on January 01, 2006, 08:16:23 AM
As much as I'd love to collect all these books, I am not in the position to go ordering things all the time. Maybe someday.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on January 01, 2006, 09:34:13 AM
Quote
The book is worth reading, though only short.You should be able to order a copy through your library.

I meant YOU can ask the library,who  will order you a copy to BORROW... :)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on January 01, 2006, 05:13:33 PM
My library has a pathetically sad selection of books, they have the same Romanov related books they had when I was in the seventh grade, and that was now over 30 years ago. Our area libraries never have anything rare like that. :-/
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: lancashireladandre on January 02, 2006, 07:22:47 AM
Quote
My library has a pathetically sad selection of books, they have the same Romanov related books they had when I was in the seventh grade, and that was now over 30 years ago. Our area libraries never have anything rare like that. :-/

Here in the UK we are very lucky. For 60pence you can fill in a request card and the whole country is searched for the book. If it is really old it comes from a central storage in Yorkshire and sometimes has to be read on the  premises (ie your local library). Even University libraries are part of the network.Inquire if there is not something of that kind,operating in Canada. ;)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 01:34:48 PM
Quote
Here in the UK we are very lucky. For 60pence you can fill in a request card and the whole country is searched for the book. If it is really old it comes from a central storage in Yorkshire and sometimes has to be read on the  premises (ie your local library). Even University libraries are part of the network.Inquire if there is not something of that kind,operating in Canada. ;)


Here in the US it's not so good. Each individual city or county has their own library system, and they can only search or loan out books from their own system. Many small localities have very limited collections. Many cities won't even help you if you are not a resident or pay a fee of about $50!

The US Government has just about everything in the Library of Congress, and I even drove up there one time, but found that not only are no books to leave the place, since 9-11 you have to have some kind of special invite to even be allowed in!

Universities here only help their students and staff, no ordinary people off the street. My son's college is not very big and doesn't have much older stuff on the Romanovs.

So here, the best bet is Ebay, if anything comes up for bidding and you win out. I'm not much into buying that way.

I do try rummage sales and used book stores, hoping to find a gem hiding, but no luck so far.

BTW, my ancestors are from Lancashire, a place called Suma Cum Hardy or something like that, ever heard of it? If you have any info for me on it you can PM me before we take this thread OT!
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Sarushka on January 02, 2006, 09:29:59 PM
Quote
Here in the US it's not so good. Each individual city or county has their own library system, and they can only search or loan out books from their own system. Many small localities have very limited collections. Many cities won't even help you if you are not a resident or pay a fee of about $50!

This could well be true in some places, but it's certainly not the case throughout the US! I live in a small town in Michigan, and I can order anything in the county myself. We also have a state-wide system anyone with a valid library card can access. For more obscure items, I ask the librarians, and they're happy to interloan from anyplace in the country. All this is free, and many of my books have come from university libraries. In most cases, the $50 fee for non-residents is far less than residents pay in their yearly taxes to support their home library.

The biggest trouble with libraries, IMO, is that they're notoriously lax about letting the public know these sevices are available.

I'll get off my soapbox, now...
;)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 10:09:23 PM
I have never seen a llibrary that would or could go outside its own system for searching and loaning. If you can get them from 'all over the country' who pays the expenses? Seems like it would add up, and it would be very hard to keep track of one library's books when they are flying all over the place.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 02, 2006, 10:35:16 PM
Well, it is true Annie. Every library I have used has eactly that- intra-library loans. Sometimes there is a small fee, but usually not much. Try asking.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2006, 06:35:04 AM
"Try asking?" That's rather insulting, I mean, considering all my posts, don't you think I've been looking into this for years? The place I used to live was a large metropolitan area of over a million people in 5 cities all boardering each other, and even they kept their library systems separate. As a matter of fact, once I returned a Chesapeake book to the Portsmouth library by mistake, and when I realized it and asked them about it, they said it was still sitting there and they refused to take it to them, and the libraries were only about a mile away from each other! They gave it to me and told me to take it back. Nope, no library sharing, not anywhere I've ever been There are also no 'small fees'- in Chesapeake, if you are not a resident, you must pay a yearly fee of $40 to even get services like ordering books from other librarirs, and this means branches of THEIR other libraries only! You can only check out 2 books at a time, and you can check them out from the other same city libraries, but you have to go get them yourself. They will have them sent from other branches=  their own branches, no other city's- for their residents, or those who pay the fee, but it still is only within the city. The idea of them searching for miles around is just not going to happen here. I guess we are more strapped for funds and hurt by budget cuts. My son's college library has cut its hours because of money, too. But really, if I ran a library, I wouldn't do it. Seems like half the stuff I'm looking for is 'missing', I can see how loaning out to everyone and their grandmother across hell and half of Georgia would lead to more unrecoverable losses.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Sarushka on January 03, 2006, 08:10:34 AM
Yikes! You've really got it rough there, Annie.

I can return anything from the county system to any library I choose. When books from outside the system are mistakenly returned, my local library coughs up the postage to send the book back to its rightful home.

There usually are no fees for inter/intra-library loans. That's where the taxes paid by residents and the fees paid by non-residents come into use (and as I said before, the non-resident fee is VERY reasonable compared to what residents pay in their taxes). The only time my system charges me is if the loaning library charges them, which is rare. It would seem to me that paying a non-resident fee at a good library is much more economical than buying old & rare books.

As for keeping track of their inter-loaned books, between computerized inventory systems on both ends, fax, and email, they do a fine job. Their only real risk is with the patron, and who's to say a patron in Chesapeake is more or less trustworthy than one in Michigan?  ;) Loaning across a wider area does increase risk of loss, but it also increases the general knowledge of the population. As a person who's benefitted immensly from libraries' general willingness to trust patrons across the country, I think it's well worth the risk.

Bottom line: I'm sorry you have to deal with such a dark-ages library system. But please don't knock US libraries in general.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: M_Breheny on January 09, 2006, 05:20:59 PM
Thanks, Sarushka, for your vote of confidence on behalf of libraries and librarians.  I agree that the library system in Annie's former city appears to be somewhat antiquated, and that is a real shame.  As for me, I am a reference librarian at a community college about 40 miles south of the cities of Chesapeake/Norfolk/Portsmouth/Virginia Beach.  True, I am in a different state (North Carolina), but our State Community College System provides free inter-library loan service throughout the state, as long as the patron is a community college student or has acquired a non-student, community-resident library card from our library.  On the other hand, I don't think it is that easy at our public library.   It is unfortunate that library service in the United States is not more unified.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Rodney_G. on October 09, 2006, 03:16:52 PM
   
   I Know this thread is ancient but my question remains. It's frequently stated that Sophie Bux. was the only one of the Imperial suite to avoid arrest and execution and to get away from Ekaterinburg. Yet both Gilliard and Gibbes were not axactly arrested and eventually left on atrain from Ekaterinburg to ultimate freedom.
   What's the difference between their status and Sophie's? Were they "retinue" and Sophie part of the Imperial "suite"? As Imperial family tutors for many years they became AP familiars. Their mere presence in  Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg with the children implies some sort of intimate status.  Trupp, Kharitonov and Demidova had lesser status than Gilliard and Giubbes  but were murdered. Could someone explain theDistinction?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 10, 2006, 11:37:49 PM
"Try asking?" That's rather insulting, I mean, considering all my posts, don't you think I've been looking into this for years? The place I used to live was a large metropolitan area of over a million people in 5 cities all boardering each other, and even they kept their library systems separate. As a matter of fact, once I returned a Chesapeake book to the Portsmouth library by mistake, and when I realized it and asked them about it, they said it was still sitting there and they refused to take it to them, and the libraries were only about a mile away from each other! They gave it to me and told me to take it back. Nope, no library sharing, not anywhere I've ever been There are also no 'small fees'- in Chesapeake, if you are not a resident, you must pay a yearly fee of $40 to even get services like ordering books from other librarirs, and this means branches of THEIR other libraries only! You can only check out 2 books at a time, and you can check them out from the other same city libraries, but you have to go get them yourself. They will have them sent from other branches=  their own branches, no other city's- for their residents, or those who pay the fee, but it still is only within the city. The idea of them searching for miles around is just not going to happen here. I guess we are more strapped for funds and hurt by budget cuts. My son's college library has cut its hours because of money, too. But really, if I ran a library, I wouldn't do it. Seems like half the stuff I'm looking for is 'missing', I can see how loaning out to everyone and their grandmother across hell and half of Georgia would lead to more unrecoverable losses.

Annie - maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything here but a desire to help you get the Trewin book. if you lived closer, I could even loan you mine. My suggestion - ask Marlene. She is quite the librarian and also a scholar of royal history. If I were in your situation, I would ask her for a hand with an IL loan. Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 10, 2006, 11:51:23 PM
   
   I Know this thread is ancient but my question remains. It's frequently stated that Sophie Bux. was the only one of the Imperial suite to avoid arrest and execution and to get away from Ekaterinburg. Yet both Gilliard and Gibbes were not axactly arrested and eventually left on atrain from Ekaterinburg to ultimate freedom.
   What's the difference between their status and Sophie's? Were they "retinue" and Sophie part of the Imperial "suite"? As Imperial family tutors for many years they became AP familiars. Their mere presence in  Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg with the children implies some sort of intimate status.  Trupp, Kharitonov and Demidova had lesser status than Gilliard and Giubbes  but were murdered. Could someone explain theDistinction?

Buxhoeveden was a lady in waiting to the Empress and thus part of the Imperial Court. Gilliard and Gibbes were teachers of the Imperial children and thus not part of the Court. The distinction has nothing at all to do with the intimacy in which they lived with the IF, but just their status - or rather what their status would have been had the Revolution not happened.

I don't have my references handy, so if I'm wrong here, I will surely be corrected. I believe that Trupp, Kharitonov and Demidova all accompanied the Emperor to Ekaterinburg. All those who made such a journey were murdered. I think that those who accompanied the Imperial children, including Buxhoeveden, had differing fates. For example, Mdlle. Schneider was murdered, but Sophie was freed.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Lemur on October 11, 2006, 12:54:07 PM
The Bolsheviks were touchy about executing foreign nationals, in fear of angering governments who might want to attack and harm their then fragile hold on Russia. Gilliard was Swiss (neutral, remember this was shown in the movie Nicholas and Alexandra when he was separated from the family on the way to Ekaterinburg), Gibbes an Englishman, and Buxhoevedon thought to be a Swede due to her surname (according to her own account.) The three servants who were executed were Russian citizens.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 11, 2006, 03:30:03 PM
The Bolsheviks were touchy about executing foreign nationals, in fear of angering governments who might want to attack and harm their then fragile hold on Russia. Gilliard was Swiss (neutral, remember this was shown in the movie Nicholas and Alexandra when he was separated from the family on the way to Ekaterinburg), Gibbes an Englishman, and Buxhoevedon thought to be a Swede due to her surname (according to her own account.) The three servants who were executed were Russian citizens.

You know, I have heard this line of reasoning for years, and it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There were many people murdered during the Revolution and Civil War period and many of these were actually foreign nationals. The Bolsheviks, in truth, were "touchy" about one thing only -retaining their hold on power. Their behavior with regard to the Romanovs and those who served them was a mixed bag that is difficult to generalize about. Let's take a look at just a few of them, shall we?

1. Gilliard - the neutral Swiss would not, I am quite certain, have attacked Russia for killing PG. If the Nazis did not provoke them to going to war a generation later, I doubt that killing one teacher would have gotten them riled up.

2. Gibbes - I would be willing to buy the argument about his being British saving him, except none of the Imperial teachers were killed - not Petrov, not Gilliard, no one. So, I don't think this holds up.

3. Schneider - Alexandra's court reader was murdered outside Perm in 1918 and was a German. Many German born people were murdered by the Bolsheviks, including her and Alexandra and GD Ella, yet there was no German retaliation or threat of it. So, I don't think this holds up.

I think we cannot draw any conclusions about the reasons for Sophie Buxhoevedon's survival in Siberian captivity. We can say with certainty that the only other person of a similar rank, Countess Gendrikova, also a Russian lady in waiting, was murdered along with Schneider. Why this was so is debatable.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: ashdean on October 13, 2006, 08:53:55 AM
Mlle Schneider was not German,she was Russian of German (at least on her fathers side) heritage.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 13, 2006, 04:32:50 PM
Mlle Schneider was not German,she was Russian of German (at least on her fathers side) heritage.

I had always heard that Mlle. Schneider accompanied Alexandra from Darmstadt to Russia. Of course, there were many ethnic Germans who lived in the Russian Empire. And, there is a chance that Mlle. Schneider came from Russia to Darmstadt after the Imperial couple's engagement.

If this is true, it still tends to disprove the argument about why Buxhoeveden survived. She and Mlle Schneider would have been ethnic Germans who were Russian subjects and members of the Imperial Court. If in fact there was a policy to not execute foreign nationals, wouldn't she have been mistaken for being a German as was the Baroness?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on October 13, 2006, 05:41:39 PM
Sophie was mistaken for a Swede, not a German.

This also brings to mind the story FA posted once about how part of the German peace treaty asked for the 'princesses of German blood' to be delivered safely to them. This is very likely responsible for the Perm stories and other 'sightings' of the women to cover the fact that they were dead. But anyway, my point is, it was another point to show that at least some Bolsheviks thought it best not to mess with executing citizens of other countries.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on October 13, 2006, 09:08:23 PM
She and Mlle Schneider would have been ethnic Germans who were Russian subjects and members of the Imperial Court. If in fact there was a policy to not execute foreign nationals, wouldn't she have been mistaken for being a German as was the Baroness?

Despite the surname Буксгевден (Buxhoeveden) was Russian born as was her parents. Her family descended from the Baltic area, with Danish and Swedish ancestry. Petr Fedorovich (1784-1863) was born in Russia, and served the Empire from 1850, as a General-leitenant in the Imperial suite. While his father, Fedor Fedorovich (1750-1811), was German born, and moved to Livonia. He served the Russian Empire as General in the infantry from 1803. He married an Orlov: the daughter of Empress Ekaterina II and G. Orlov, Nataliya Alexandrovna in 1777, a Smoyanka graduate.

Margarita  
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Annie on October 13, 2006, 09:44:41 PM
That's what I assumed, she had Swedish ancestry though she was ethnically mostly Russian, and Russian born and raised. Certainly worked out to her advantage! Thanks for the info!

So Sophie was a descendant of Catherine the Great?!
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: ashdean on October 14, 2006, 03:19:38 AM
Mlle Schneider was not German,she was Russian of German (at least on her fathers side) heritage.

I had always heard that Mlle. Schneider accompanied Alexandra from Darmstadt to Russia. Of course, there were many ethnic Germans who lived in the Russian Empire. And, there is a chance that Mlle. Schneider came from Russia to Darmstadt after the Imperial couple's engagement.

If this is true, it still tends to disprove the argument about why Buxhoeveden survived. She and Mlle Schneider would have been ethnic Germans who were Russian subjects and members of the Imperial Court. If in fact there was a policy to not execute foreign nationals, wouldn't she have been mistaken for being a German as was the Baroness?
Mlle Schneider was sent from Russia to Harrogate where the newly engaged Alix of Hesse was taking a cure. Having joined Alexandra's household she never left it.....
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Lemur on October 14, 2006, 09:47:17 AM
I think we cannot draw any conclusions about the reasons for Sophie Buxhoevedon's survival in Siberian captivity. We can say with certainty that the only other person of a similar rank, Countess Gendrikova, also a Russian lady in waiting, was murdered along with Schneider. Why this was so is debatable.

Are you suggesting there is any validity to the theory that she betrayed the family to save her own life? Is that why you think she was let go? I personally do not believe that. I don't beileve she'd have remained close to Gilliard and Gibbes all that time if they knew she was a 'traitor.' Besides, didn't the 'betrayal' story originate with the illustrious Anna Anderson? Another reason not to take it seriously.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 14, 2006, 11:57:00 AM
I think we cannot draw any conclusions about the reasons for Sophie Buxhoevedon's survival in Siberian captivity. We can say with certainty that the only other person of a similar rank, Countess Gendrikova, also a Russian lady in waiting, was murdered along with Schneider. Why this was so is debatable.

Are you suggesting there is any validity to the theory that she betrayed the family to save her own life? Is that why you think she was let go? I personally do not believe that. I don't beileve she'd have remained close to Gilliard and Gibbes all that time if they knew she was a 'traitor.' Besides, didn't the 'betrayal' story originate with the illustrious Anna Anderson? Another reason not to take it seriously.

No, I what I said was that "we cannot draw any conclusions". It has been suggested that a "foreign" sounding name was the reason she survived, and I don't think that stands up to the evidence at hand. What I believe is that the decisions to kill various persons who remained with the family were random. Some lived, some died, but I think that for some of them, it could have gone either way. I don't think there was a master plan or a controlling idea.

I'm uncertain about whether or not she betrayed the family. I do not consider it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Sarushka on October 14, 2006, 03:12:05 PM
Mlle Schneider was not German,she was Russian of German (at least on her fathers side) heritage.

I had always heard that Mlle. Schneider accompanied Alexandra from Darmstadt to Russia. Of course, there were many ethnic Germans who lived in the Russian Empire. And, there is a chance that Mlle. Schneider came from Russia to Darmstadt after the Imperial couple's engagement.

If this is true, it still tends to disprove the argument about why Buxhoeveden survived. She and Mlle Schneider would have been ethnic Germans who were Russian subjects and members of the Imperial Court. If in fact there was a policy to not execute foreign nationals, wouldn't she have been mistaken for being a German as was the Baroness?
Mlle Schneider was sent from Russia to Harrogate where the newly engaged Alix of Hesse was taking a cure. Having joined Alexandra's household she never left it.....
This is true -- according to Robert Massie, Mlle. Catherine Schneider was originally GD Ella's reader and assisted Alix with her Russian language studies during the summer of 1894.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 18, 2006, 02:45:54 PM
I think we cannot draw any conclusions about the reasons for Sophie Buxhoevedon's survival in Siberian captivity. We can say with certainty that the only other person of a similar rank, Countess Gendrikova, also a Russian lady in waiting, was murdered along with Schneider. Why this was so is debatable.

Are you suggesting there is any validity to the theory that she betrayed the family to save her own life? Is that why you think she was let go? I personally do not believe that. I don't beileve she'd have remained close to Gilliard and Gibbes all that time if they knew she was a 'traitor.' Besides, didn't the 'betrayal' story originate with the illustrious Anna Anderson? Another reason not to take it seriously.

Great points Lemur! :) Incidently though, I think I read that both Gilliard and Gibbes disliked Baroness Buxhoevedon (great name!!).
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on October 18, 2006, 11:16:34 PM
I think we cannot draw any conclusions about the reasons for Sophie Buxhoevedon's survival in Siberian captivity. We can say with certainty that the only other person of a similar rank, Countess Gendrikova, also a Russian lady in waiting, was murdered along with Schneider. Why this was so is debatable.

Are you suggesting there is any validity to the theory that she betrayed the family to save her own life? Is that why you think she was let go? I personally do not believe that. I don't beileve she'd have remained close to Gilliard and Gibbes all that time if they knew she was a 'traitor.' Besides, didn't the 'betrayal' story originate with the illustrious Anna Anderson? Another reason not to take it seriously.

No, I what I said was that "we cannot draw any conclusions". It has been suggested that a "foreign" sounding name was the reason she survived, and I don't think that stands up to the evidence at hand. What I believe is that the decisions to kill various persons who remained with the family were random. Some lived, some died, but I think that for some of them, it could have gone either way. I don't think there was a master plan or a controlling idea.

I'm uncertain about whether or not she betrayed the family. I do not consider it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indeed an opinion in the absence of clear documented evidence, other than to be used to discredit a loyal member of the Court is best ignored. That opinion adds nothing to our understanding as to why the Baroness was permitted to leave bolshevik Russia.

Margarita
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on October 18, 2006, 11:37:39 PM
...  I don't beileve she'd have remained close to Gilliard and Gibbes all that time if they knew she was a 'traitor.' Besides, didn't the 'betrayal' story originate with the illustrious Anna Anderson? Another reason not to take it seriously.

Lemur you are perfectly correct in your logical analysis.

There seems to be slight problem with accepting what AA allegedly stated. How would she have known?

Margarita  ???
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Belochka on October 19, 2006, 01:31:34 AM
Indeed an opinion in the absence of clear documented evidence, other than to be used to discredit a loyal member of the Court is best ignored. That opinion adds nothing to our understanding as to why the Baroness was permitted to leave bolshevik Russia.

Margarita

My apologies but my previous statement should have read:

Indeed an opinion in the absence of clear documented evidence used to discredit a loyal member of the Court is best ignored. That opinion adds nothing to our understanding as to why the Baroness was permitted to leave bolshevik Russia.

Margarita
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Lemur on October 19, 2006, 10:11:15 AM
The Baroness was not actually permitted to leave Bolshevik Russia by Bolsheviks. It happened during a long and varied chain of events over more than a year. The party she was put out with, including Gibbes and Gilliard, were told to leave Ekaterinburg, and were threatened that they must. The reason Schneider and Hendrickov where executed is because they were in a group of seventeen essential servants the family was allowed to keep, and Buxhoevedon and the tutors were not. So there's the explaination why they were in more danger of execution- they were in a different category. Buxhoevedon mentions in her book "Left Behind" how they did risk themselves to try to see the family, and they saw Nagorny as he was being taken to his execution. For a moment, their eyes met, and they knew he had seen them. They held their collective breath in fear he may unintentionally give them away, but he was careful not to and they were grateful. They were amazed at his presence of mind considering his own impending fate.

For many months, she, the tutors and a few others traveled across Siberia, facing many challenges and both good and bad situations, danger, and even at times remaining anonymous. They were in towns that had fallen to the Reds, Whites, Greens, all of them, and back again. This was common in those days in Siberia. In fact this is how they got out of Russia! The area they left Russia from (Omsk) was not under Bolshevik rule at the time but controlled by the Whites under Admiral Kolchak with a heavy British presence. Their British military train  passed through parts of China and ended up in Vladivostock, which at that time was controlled by Allied forces, mainly the British. It was because of this that they had no problem securing their exit from Russian territory. She said she owed her escape to a British General named Knox.

Buxhoevedon sailed to Japan, and from there to Hawaii, then San Francisco, traveled by railroad to New York where she took an ocean liner to England, and then traveled on to her father in Sweden. Hers was a remarkable and very informative journey, gives much insight into her as a person, as well as a lot of eyewitness accounts of the Russian civil war in Siberia. You can read it right here on this site.

http://alexanderpalace.org/leftbehind/preface.html
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Teddy on October 21, 2006, 02:59:53 PM
Are there no pictures of her in later life?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: newfan on February 10, 2009, 12:55:34 AM
...........I have hear that the russians liquidated people years after revolution..Do you know who the people they killed were?and why?...i know this link is not been used in a while but i am not sure where to post this.
And i am intersted to know
thank you
newfan
Quote
That the Bolsheviks let people go for unknowable reasons. No one, but  NO one was closer to Alexanda than Anya A. yet they let her go scot free. No one ever accused AA of giving away secrets or betraying the IF. So, why should they accuse Sophie B?

Dear Rob,

What you write is actually very true.

There are von Buxhoeveden archives still extant, however, and they are in both Cherry Hills, NJ and in New York City with the surviving direct descedants of the Baroness.  I am not aware, however if they have been consulted, or even if the family would allow it.

But as to your point, indeed.

By all signs of the time, Anna Vyrubova should have been shot on-the-spot.

By all signs of the time, Sophie von Buxhoevedent should have been shot on-the-spot.

As a general rule, the Bolsheviks liquidated the courtiers first and asked questions later, if ever.

The had to know who Vyurbova was.  Everyone in Piter knew who was Vryubova was.  She was probably almost as hated as Rapustin, and slightly less than Kerensky, and was surely blamed for every evil possible.  So what indeed was the trade-off?  And why was she allowed to escape?  And once she escaped into the emigration in Finland, why was she not tracked down there and liquidated in the same manner the Bolsheviks liquidated so many in Paris and in Prague and in Belgrade?  There MUST have had to have been a trade-off.  But what was it?  And what could she have traded up?

As for the Baroness, I write the same questions.  Vryubova may have the closest to the Empress, but she was despised even by the rest of the Camarilla.  The Baroness was more innocuous and would have learned much than even Vryubova, albeit unwittingly so.  So what was the trade-off here? What did she offer up?  The jewels...I don't think so personally...the NKVD writes that they were already known about...did she know something about a  possiblity of foreign exile that was not mentioned elsewhere?  And then why did the Home Office in London grant her "droit-de-sejour" in England when it refused so many other Russian nobles and court people?  What exactly did she bring with her to London or have shipped to London?  This indeed is not a small question, dear all, but a very, very valid one.

Indeed, let's discuss this.  It truly merits close scrutiny.

With all of the best from Shanghai,


A.A.


Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Carisbrooke on April 12, 2013, 07:04:56 AM
Quote
Does anyone know anything about the circumstances of her death?

Thanks for any help  ;D

Sophie, Baroness von Buxhoeveden, was born on June 9, 1883 (old style), at home, in St. Petersburg, Russia and the Dowager Empress (then Empress) attended her baptism.

She was the daugther of Baron Karl Matthis Ludwig von Buxhoeveden and of Mme Ludmilla Ossokina, who was one of the first victims of the Revolution.  Baron Karl von Buxhoeveden died in the emigration in 1935.  He and his family were Baltic Lutherans.  Baroness von Buxhoeveden was Orthodox.  Sophie, Baroness von Buxhoeveden, had one brother, Piotr Karlovitch, who died tragically when he was less than 24-years old, a death from which his mother never recovered.

Sophie, Baroness von Buxhoeveden died on November 26, 1956 (new style) near London, England was accorded a full Orthodox funeral by the London parish of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile.  I have been asked not disclose her place of burial except to say that it is in hallowed ground for a person of the Russian Orthodox faith.

I can't see any reason for secrecy anymore as this information has been available on the internet since 2009.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=32784980 (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=32784980) .......Sophie Buxhoeveden at find a grave.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on May 01, 2013, 09:45:48 PM
I have some comments and observations on Sophie/Isa: If anyone told the Bolos about the jewelry why didn't the Urals Soviet order a search. The jewelry could have been used to bribe a guard or guards who could have arranged an escape ect. One should point out the guard force was not 100% reliable and among the prisoners are 4 rather pretty young ladies. Any rookie lawman would have had a search done. It also should be pointed out that the Urals Soviet Members were not rookies and were a bunch of hard and ruthless men. There is also no mention at this time that they discussed the jewelry. I believe the only source of this is a letter written in 1927.
 As for Isa and Sokolov from reading the book "The File on the Tsar" it seems he wasn't very popular with a lot of people.
 Isa seems like an intelligent, resourcefull, loyal and brave woman otherwise she would have never gone to Siberia to be with the Imperial family. Would not have stayed at Tobolsk and Ekterinberg ect like she did and would have probably ended up dead. She also must have been a woman of good moral character otherwise she would not have been a lady in waiting to Alexandra.
 We will probably never know the real reasons why she was not jailed with rest at Ekterinberg unless some paperwork shows up saying so. It could be something as mundane as there was no more room in the jail or she was not considered part of the entourage since she didn't travel to Toblosk with the IF and did not live in the Govenors Mantion.
 As for her later interigation along with the two maids one wonders why no one else in the entourage was questioned which is something a rookie lawman would have done. It could be because the Checkist who did the "questioning" was interested in jewelry but liked the ladies. Which is probably why she didn't talk about this incident. Finally, if somebody had told the Soviets about the jewelry why did the Soviets start their search for the rest of Alexandra's massive jewelry collection until the late 1920s/1930s.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on November 06, 2017, 09:56:49 PM
In her book "Before the Storm" she mentions having a brother who was a naval officer who was wounded and captured at the battle of Tsushima. Does anyone know more about him? Like what ship he was on? She doesn't even mention his name in this book and it looks like he died in the 1908-9 period.
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Svetabel on November 16, 2017, 02:24:22 PM
In her book "Before the Storm" she mentions having a brother who was a naval officer who was wounded and captured at the battle of Tsushima. Does anyone know more about him? Like what ship he was on? She doesn't even mention his name in this book and it looks like he died in the 1908-9 period.

Peter von Buxhoevden (1886-1909)
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on November 22, 2017, 07:27:41 PM
Thanks does anyone know what ship he was on?
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: Svetabel on November 23, 2017, 06:17:07 AM
Thanks does anyone know what ship he was on?

Cruiser "Oleg"
Title: Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
Post by: PAGE on August 06, 2018, 10:54:16 AM
I continue in presenting my views on the imperial family and those around them.

From my research, nothing allows me to say that Sophie Buxhoeveden betrayed the imperial family. At least, no more than other relatives. I think for example of Lili Dehn. When I read Markov's book, it seemed rather strange to me. Moreover, unlike Mrs. Viroubova, the imperial family often says they have no news of Lili Dehn in exile.

But I will not say that Lili Dehn has betrayed the imperial family. Such an accusation requires more than a strange attitude in a book, even if it is written by a witness.

For the rest, I think that Markov (the officer, not the politician who betrayed the imperial family) was a very honest man in his intentions to free the imperial family, and yet he was unknowingly involved in a plot. I stress that he, too, has known Bolshevik prisons. He admits to having worked for them to be released. Yet, in parallel, he continued to work for the imperial family.

Reading the writings of Sophie Buxhoeveden she appears as a clever, resourceful woman. She was cunning to reach the imperial family, but to betray me seems very surprising.

I will conclude by saying that it is an interesting ambition to want to reverse the "romantic and ideal myth of the Romanovs", but we need tangible elements. However, for the moment, judging tangible evidence, there are some crumbs on one side and a documentary mass on the other.