Author Topic: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)  (Read 69818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #45 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?

AlexP

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #46 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.

Offline hikaru

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #47 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.

AlexP

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #48 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.


Offline hikaru

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #49 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.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #50 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.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #51 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.  

Offline hikaru

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #52 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.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #53 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.

AlexP

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #54 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.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AlexP »

Offline Dominic_Albanese

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #55 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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Dominic_Albanese »

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #56 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.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

AlexP

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #57 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.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #58 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.  

AlexP

  • Guest
Re: Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)
« Reply #59 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AlexP »