Yurovsky and GD Marie

I recently read a book about the german terrorist group 'Baader Meinhof'. The relevance to the IF is a description of how one of the terrorists went to great lengths to slander the memory of one of their kidnap victims. This was done in revenge for his ego being wounded by the victim in front of the group.

Yurovsky went to great lengths to slander GD Marie. He is the only source that states she suffered from 'Stockholm Syndrome' and 'flirted' with her captors. This he said caused her to be estranged from her mother and GD Olga. Also that when the bodies were searched it was found that GD Marie was not wearing a chemise/corset concealing jewels. He states this as futher proof that the rest of the family no longer trusted her as a direct result of her 'flirtations'. I find this subjuect quite repulsive but feel we owe it to GD Marie to dispel slander and lies of this nature 'head on' and with as many 'facts' as we have available'.

To start with the reason GD Marie may not have been wearing a jewel hiding chemise is that she accompanied her parents to Ekateringburg ahead of the other children and it was precisely owing to the alarming amount of scrutiny they were subjected to that Alexandra wrote in code to the children in tobolsk to 'pack the medicines' (ie conceal the jewels). Its very unlikely the family would have attempted anything like this while at Ekateringburg.

The next thing Yurovsky 'slips up on' is that he recounts the '' step sister'' nickname being used by the GDs with Marie. This he could only have learnt through later research. Its a well known reference of Miss Eager recounting the elder GD's joke about how angelic Marie was. There is no other record of the family ever using this 'nick-name' ever again. Therefore I believe it was not something Yurovsky ever 'witnessed'. Why then did he go to such efforts to defile GD Marie's memory?

Terrorists are self agrandising opportunists on the whole. Yurovsky really felt he had become 'somebody' by murdering the IF. The fact that he went to such efforts to 'flesh out' his slander of Marie, knowing that anecdotes of Marie's childhood innocent crushes would add weight to his lies show that in some way he had 'an axe to grind' on the reputation of this particular member of the IF.

Could it be that GD Marie in her direct and uncomplicated way said something that diminished Yurovsky  in front of his 'men'. Even he admits that her open natural manner made her one of the most liked and respected members of the family by the guards so maybe the answer lies there.

There are things about some of the 'forensic' evidence in relation to this that trouble me. We know its a 50% certainty that Marie was the sister buried separately with Alexei and that the ballistics from that site is entirely different to the main grave. Is it possible that the same guards who refused to shoot Sednev also refused to shoot Alexei? Could it be that Yurovsky was forced to come up with a ruse to separate Alexei from the others to be dispacthed elsewhere and a later hour? Was GD Marie elected by the rest of the family to accompany her brother due to her physical ability to lift him etc a concession yurovsky would have had to make to prevent further suspicion. And did GD Marie fight back in her final moments to protect her brother? Ultimately we will never really know and now it no longer matters. What does matter is putting an end to Yurovsky's hateful slander of an innocent defenseless young girl.

sorry to 'reply' to my own post, 


Just wanted to also apologise if any offence is caused by this subject, I know many people find it distasteful but no disrepect is intended-(i've been off sick this week so too much time on my hands!)

No, it is an interesting speculation, though I suspect that Alexei and Maria died at the Ipatiev House with everybody else. However, I agree Yurovsky does seem to go out his way to create a scandal around Maria - maybe through that to further scandalise the memory of the Imperial Family. I agree with you about the reason for Maria not having concealed jewellery.

Thanks for your comment Georgiy really appreciate it. What prompted me to post it was I have just finished reading Helen Rappenport's 'Ekateringburg'. The only sources available for that are of course Yurovsky and Ermakov, apart from the Priest and cleaning ladies who had a few vey brief encounters with the family at that time. What is so upsetting about the book is that it relates details such as this 'story' about GD Marie as historical fact.

Further proof to mind that this 'story' about Marie is just slander is that at Tobolsk where there were plenty of independent witnesses, there is absolutely no hint of this kind of thing. I think that Yurovsky would have known that family, friends and supporters would have studied his every word about the family as there are no other accounts and placed details like this in with plausible things to cause pain and hurt. Ms Rappenport is in-advertantly continuing and expanding it.

Yurovsky went to great lengths to slander GD Marie. He is the only source that states she suffered from 'Stockholm Syndrome' and 'flirted' with her captors.

IMO, Yurovksy didn't intentionally slander Maria.

There are statements by other guards in Ispoved' Tsareubiits that support his view of Maria. None of them assign any sexual innuendo to her behavior -- it's characterized more as fraternizing than flirting.

This he said caused her to be estranged from her mother and GD Olga. Also that when the bodies were searched it was found that GD Marie was not wearing a chemise/corset concealing jewels. He states this as futher proof that the rest of the family no longer trusted her as a direct result of her 'flirtations'.

I believe Yurovsky did witness some tensions within the imperial family. (As Rappaport points out, it's nearly inevitable given the crowding and strain of their circumstances.) When he found Maria's body was without jewels, he likely assumed the two incidents were connected. Looking back, he would have assigned more significance to his memories of the family's discord, however trivial that discord might have been in reality. It's a common fallibility of eyewitness testimony.

The next thing Yurovsky 'slips up on' is that he recounts the '' step sister'' nickname being used by the GDs with Marie. This he could only have learnt through later research. Its a well known reference of Miss Eager recounting the elder GD's joke about how angelic Marie was. There is no other record of the family ever using this 'nick-name' ever again. Therefore I believe it was not something Yurovsky ever 'witnessed'. Why then did he go to such efforts to defile GD Marie's memory?

I think it's unlikely that Yurovsky would have read Eagar's memoir prior to taking charge of the imperial family's captivity. It's even more unlikely that he would have read it afterward, given how the Soviets destroyed imperial "propaganda."

What prompted me to post it was I have just finished reading Helen Rappenport's 'Ekateringburg'. The only sources available for that are of course Yurovsky and Ermakov, apart from the Priest and cleaning ladies who had a few vey brief encounters with the family at that time. What is so upsetting about the book is that it relates details such as this 'story' about GD Marie as historical fact.

This alleged incident between Maria and Skorkhodov was first discussed in King & Wilson's Fate of the Romanovs. You'll find more details and ample footnotes that will allow you to track down many of the original sources and see if you agree with their conclusions. I recommend doing so -- it's how I solidified my own opinion. Rappaport's account of this alleged incident is essentially a summary of K&W's version.

Further proof to mind that this 'story' about Marie is just slander is that at Tobolsk where there were plenty of independent witnesses, there is absolutely no hint of this kind of thing.

On the contrary, at Tobolsk the entire family fraternized openly with the 4th Regiment. The tsar even dined with them in their barracks from time to time, and if I recall correctly both the tsar and the empress both visited with the men on Christmas Eve 1917.

Dear Sarushka

Thank you so much for taking the time to give me such a detailed and informative response. My post was in many parts an ill-considered rant. I have already ordered the two books recommended. For the record I think Ms Rappaports book is well written and informative. I also think she shows real sensitivity.

Its just in my opinion the overall impression you get is that Maria's 'fraternizing' had a distinctly sexual element (the birthday cake incident etc). I will be much better placed to consider this once I have looked at the background resources you have suggested. Once again, thank you.

Its just in my opinion the overall impression you get is that Maria's 'fraternizing' had a distinctly sexual element (the birthday cake incident etc).

Many people initially feel that way after reading about the Skorokhodov incident -- I know I did. But after considering how the perception of what constitutes "flirting" has changed in the last 90+ years, and some independent examination of K&W's sources, I soon changed my mind. Speranski's La Maison à destination spéciale: La tragédie d’Ekaterinenbourg was also particularly helpful. It's difficult to find, but IMO it's well worth the effort to read Speranski's interviews with the guards in the original French edition.

I must say I find the "step-sister' reference a bit unlikely too. It was an early reference to Marie's remarkable goodness as opposed to her sisters' more normal possession of human foibles. Though Marie never lost that extraordinary caring and generous nature, by the time of Yurovsky's tenure as commandant , everyone was older and more subdued, and the environment of captivity couid likely have constrained the women's  talk in front of their captors, including referring to Marie as the "step-sister".

It's also possible that Yurovsky was familiar with Eagar's book ,either through reading it( Unlikely) or through circulation of its anecdotes throughout Russia over more than a decade (more likely).
And though other guards mentioned the "birthday cake flirtation"  at some later point, it was Yurovsky whose characterisation of the incident exaggerated its significance and suggested there was more to it than a friendly gesture or even modest flirtation.
As for IF fraternisation with their captors, there's really litttle comparison of their interactions in Tobolsk with friendly Russian (recently)Imperial Army experienced troops with whom the family had good relations for some time, and the contacts with the Bolshevik hardcore guard of the last month at Ipatiev House. The former fraternisation wouldn't be considered peggiorative, while the latter would, and I don't see Marie's actions as a betrayal.

But for what it's worth, I think there's little serious thought from either side of the isue that there was anything sexual occurring with Skorokhodov.

In  the Maria and Commissar Pankratov thread, it's discussed how Alix was teasing Marie over Pankratov's  manner towards her....lots of such teasing about flirtations/ crushes  went on though out thier lives really, not  just after they grew up. If you are unused to over hearing such, it can seem an unpleasantness...that is,  censure. 

Posted by: Sarushka There are statements by other guards in Ispoved' Tsareubiits that support his view of Maria. None of them assign any sexual innuendo to her behavior -- it's characterized more as fraternizing than flirting.

Indeed. Marie's  life long skill at fraternizing with others  is often mentioned in people's memories of her. During thier meandering train ride on the way to Ekaterinburg with her parents, Marie is sent twice to the troop car to try to see if she can find out where they are going. ( she doesn't)...If Tatiana was the one to ask for things , Marie would be the one to find out things . She was in Ekaterinburg much longer than the others as well. The lack of jewels on Marie's body is completely explained by the fact she was not with the others when the "medicines" were arranged, that is when  the jewels  were sewn into the corsets. But Marie still played her part in that. A vital one. She was the test case for the extent of the searching they all would face upon arrival and the need to hide the gems . They would hardly undo the sewing when there  in order to have her hide them too! ...that would rather defeat the purpose .And as you say , when someone back then says something along these line, we today, immediately think sexual innuendo. But by this time I imagine it would be  difficult  to have any time alone between the two groups ( the guarded and guards)  for anything besides talk . The" compromising position" ,in thier view could simply be they were alone at all. We read "position " and think something else entirely .

And though other guards mentioned the "birthday cake flirtation"  at some later point, it was Yurovsky whose characterisation of the incident exaggerated its significance and suggested there was more to it than a friendly gesture or even modest flirtation.

To my knowledge, Ermakov is the sole source for the birthday cake incident. I don't recall Yurovsky ever remarking on it.

And though other guards mentioned the "birthday cake flirtation"  at some later point, it was Yurovsky whose characterisation of the incident exaggerated its significance and suggested there was more to it than a friendly gesture or even modest flirtation.

To my knowledge, Ermakov is the sole source for the birthday cake incident. I don't recall Yurovsky ever remarking on it.

I am reading "The last days of the romanovs" (Wilson, Telberg) and i don't recall to have read the "cake incident" in the guards' depositions. To be sure, i'll check on the way to work and let you know in the afternoon (my time), if someone hasn't done it already by the time. But i'm quite sure there isn't.
Sarushka, saying Ermakov, do you mean "Seven League Boots" or some other source? (i'm just curious, since i'm going to start reading Halliburton - found his book at last).

In  the Maria and Commissar Pankratov thread, it's discussed how Alix was teasing Marie over Pankratov's  manner towards her...

BTW, i found something in The last days of the R-ov: in Wilton's narration the journalist says something like: "Pankratov used to play with the children, his favourite being Maria"
(i'll post the exact words later, if you like). Since i understand that Wilson wrote using the depositions of witnesses as sources, i believe it's quite attendible (if it's not, please correct me).

And as you say , when someone back then says something along these line, we today, immediately think sexual innuendo. But by this time I imagine it would be  difficult  to have any time alone between the two groups ( the guarded and guards)  for anything besides talk . The" compromising position" ,in thier view could simply be they were alone at all. We read "position " and think something else entirely .

Ditto. Nowadays we see sexual intensions everywhere, and this simply because most people want us to see them. Just think to the classical young woman on the bus (i'm sure there's one everywhere), half naked even if it's winter and it's snowing, who seates down and begins to look around, it seems she's wathcing whether someone is looking at her (i have this weird experience almost everyday on the bus from work, when a group of High School students get in - there's always the girl who wants to attract attention).
Just to say that what is considered sexual nowadays is not automatically what was so considered a century ago (luckily).

Sarushka, saying Ermakov, do you mean "Seven League Boots" or some other source? (i'm just curious, since i'm going to start reading Halliburton - found his book at last).

Yes. This is Ermakov's only reference to the situation, on pg 128 of Seven League Boots:

"I remember Maria had her nineteenth birthday party in the prison house -- one of the guards took her some cakes."

And as you say , when someone back then says something along these line, we today, immediately think sexual innuendo. But by this time I imagine it would be  difficult  to have any time alone between the two groups ( the guarded and guards)  for anything besides talk . The" compromising position" ,in thier view could simply be they were alone at all. We read "position " and think something else entirely .

Exactly. Remember also that with the exception of Avdeev and his three aides, the guards were not authorized to be in the IF's living quarters. When authors characterize the situation as "compromising" they're not necessarily referring to Maria's innocence -- more than anything the situation compromised the security of the Ipatiev House.

I must say I find the "step-sister' reference a bit unlikely too. It was an early reference to Marie's remarkable goodness as opposed to her sisters' more normal possession of human foibles.

That's a good point. I wonder if Yurovsky might have misconstrued the IF's old habit of teasing Maria? To an outsider unaware of its context, "stepsister" could sound quite harsh. And given that "stepsister" had previously been a reference to Maria's angelic temperament, it doesn't make sense for the IF to suddenly turn around and use that nickname to shame her for bad behavior. If they did, it would have been like a slap in the face, and I have a hard time imagining them being that spiteful, even if they were angry.

And though other guards mentioned the "birthday cake flirtation"  at some later point, it was Yurovsky whose characterisation of the incident exaggerated its significance and suggested there was more to it than a friendly gesture or even modest flirtation.

To my knowledge, Ermakov is the sole source for the birthday cake incident. I don't recall Yurovsky ever remarking on it.

I stand corrected about the attribution of the mention of the incident, but his (Yurovsky's) non-mention of the incident in any of his writings certainly doesn't mean he wasn't aware of its occurrence. He obviously did since no one sneezed without him becoming aware of it.

I took Sarushka's good advice and looked at background material  regarding this. 


The main source of contention for me is still Yurovsky's quotes given in his 1922 memoir  ''note'' that relate specifically to Grand Duchess Maria.

In this he states that she was an outcast within the family and the fact that he found her not to be concealing jewels in her clothes like her siblings was further proof of this. It struck me as odd that he never directly refers to what caused her to be in his opinion shunned by her family only stating ''after what happended''.

He can then only be refering to the birthday cake incident on Maria's birthday 27th June 1918 and the circumstantial evidence that this particular daughter was apparently found in compromising circumstances with the guard that smuggled her in a cake.

I don't think it wasn't possible for one the grand duchesses to behave inappropriately or that at 19 Maria wasn't a sexual being, its just under scrutiny the evidence doesn't necessarily support the fact that the incident was sexual in nature as is now suggested. My feeling (and I would very much appreciate your more knowledgable view on this) is that this is part of the Ural Soviet's cover story to justify killing the family without Moscow (Lenin and Sverdlov's) prior approval. Evidence for this to me is the fact that Beloborodov first sent Moscow a message stating that only Nicholas II had been killed ie lied to buy time only to then confirm they had all 'suffered the same fate as head'' (Nicholas) later that day.

Also the only people who directly quote the 'cake' incident are Ermakov, Goloshchokin and Beloborodov, one an executioner and the latter two those responsible for the decision to kill the entire family. Other guards refer to fratanising between the family and guards specifically the younger daughters but only Yurovsky repeatedly states this was sexual and led to Maria being 'disgraced'. I feel that when Moscow found out that the entire family were dead the Ural Soviet had to 'beef up' the rescue attempt at the end of June with further justification that the breakdown of security within the Ipatiev house at the end of June was the family's fault (namely Maria's) not theirs. It was Goloshchokin and Beloborodov who conducted the spot check that led to Maria and the guard being 'found' and wrote about it afterwards. Interestingly in his memoir  Ermakov states ''apparently he took her (Maria) to one side and they then dissappeared'' suggesting even he heard this rather than witnessed it first hand.

The guard log from the house otherwise meticulously kept is missing for this period 24 06 18 - 04 07 18. Two other pieces of evidence to suggest that Yurovsky may not be telling the truth are that Alexandra's penultimate diary entry on the 03 07 18 has a small but I think signifcant point in that she states '' before supper Maria and Nyuta (Demidova) washed my head''. This little detail shows that even if there was a rift it was not a serious as Yurovsky makes out given that less than a week later Maria helped perform this intimate task for her mother that any of her sisters could have performed were she being 'shunned'.

Then there is the gruesome details of Maria's death and the discovery of her remains (or those the American scientists identified as Maria's). Both Yurovsky and Ermakov state that Anastasia and Maria survived longest and that Ermakov had real difficulty trying to bayonet Maria. The forensic evidence of damage to the remains of Nicholas and Alexandra's bodies verify just how forceful and violent Ermakov was with the bayonet. It is then inconceivable that Maria could have survived so long without the 'jewelled' armour Yurovsky makes a point of stating she didn't have.

The concealed jewels were another very sore point for the Ural Soviet. Alexandra's diary is even in the very last days full of the coded references to 'sorting the medicines' so we know they were redistributing them up to the last and Alexei also most likely concealed them too. So even if Maria didn't arrive in Ekaterinburg with any it is very likely she was wearing them in her clothing the night she died given that accounts of the weight of these items, they were most likely spread among all the daughters.

Also the the background to the events of 27th June 1918 must be weighed up against Yurovsky's statements about Maria's behaviour. Nicholas's diary entry for that day was made at the very height of the 'Officer letter' rescue attempt and he states the previous night the family hadn't slept and had stayed fully dressed, tortured by anxiety. Then there is the guards attitude towards the daughters (with the exception of Olga) openess. The Tsars daughters had been surrounded by soldiers all their lives. Their exalted status had protected them from even the thought of impropriety. The guards female comtempories would not have been protected in this way and so open friendly interaction with young men outside the family would have been seen as shocking and scandalous. This coupled with Nicholas and Alexandra's naivety in using their daughter's charm to gain information further promoted the view. The only other first hand accounts of the grand duchesses behaviour other than Yurovsky's Goloshchokin's and Beloborodov's are the two guards Strekotin and Netrebin who stated that Olga was arrogant and unfriendly but Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia were '' natural and cheerful'' they do not say ''flirtatious''.

Also the fact that the ''compromising position'' they found Maria in is never qualified by the Ural Soviet officials makes me think it is far more likely it was something that 'disgraced' them and their ability to secure the family, ie she passed a letter or received one or was found outside the Ipatiev compound altogether, certainly by the 29th June the family were aware the Officer letters had been intercepted as evidenced by the 'reply' they sent that day.  This story about Maria has become part of her accepted biography and I feel under scrutiny it reflects the behaviour and politics of the Ural Soviet vs Moscow rather that anything that Maria actually did.

only Yurovsky repeatedly states this was sexual and led to Maria being 'disgraced'.

I'm away from my books this week and don't recall the statements you're referring to -- can you post Yurovsky's quotes to refresh my memory?