I cannot see how anyone can use terms like ‘bunch as many problems’ and ‘strategy’ in describing correspondence of nearly 100 years ago and then state unqualified conclusions that are really conjecture.
What is clear is that the Kings views were made known to the government in a series of notes and letters. People on this forum have noted many possible problems that might have been encountered in allowing the Romanovs to come to Britain. No one knows if the government and the monarch had taken account of any or all of these problems in reaching their decisions but given what is known of the circumstances at that time but in my opinion the King was right express the views that he did. For me he put the interests of the monarchy and the country first (the two things were partly caught up with each other) and in doing so he acted correctly.
When was the deal done with the enemy regarding the Romanovs' travel arrangements? An offer of safe passage was made by the enemy which was passed on to the Russian government by a Danish politician. For a deal to be done, the British government had to agree as well. Is this documented? Risking British lives to transport vital military equipment to an ally was different to risking British lives to transport the King’s foreign relatives.
"Conjectures" is the business of historians, because usually kings, statesmen, dictators, revolutionaries.... don't keep a diary where they explain the reasons behind every decision they take. These "conjectures" can be valid guess or wild speculations, depending on how they fit with the information available.
An example of wild speculation: Nicholas II, who looked like George V's twin brother, wanted to replace him as the King of Great Britain and have him imprisoned in a dungeon, as in Anthony Hope's "The Prisoner of Zenda". There's nothing to support it. In fact, it is something that I have just made up.
An example of valid guess: George V panicked. That's the conclusion a historian, Helen Rappaport, reaches in her book Ekaterinburg. Why? She analyses the information available:
1. 9 March 1917: The British government gave their agreement to the Russian provisional government's proposal to offer asylum in Britain to the Russian Imperial Family.
2. 17 March 1917: Lord Stamfordham, the King's secretary, wrote to Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreing Affairs, expressing the King's misgivings about the Russian Imperial Family arriving in Britain.
3. 20 March 1917: Balfour replied that they cannot go back on their word. The deal is done and cannot be reversed.
4. 21 March 1917: Stamfordham sent Balfour a letter giving the King final assent: "As His Majesty's Ministers are still anxious that the King should adhere to the original invitation sent on their advice His Majesty must regards the matter as settled."
5. 24 March 1917: Stamfordham, following the King's order, started a campaign (2 letters that day, meetings with Lloyd George and Balfour) to stop the arrival of the Russian Imperial Family to Britain, after giving his agreement to it twice: 9 March and 21 March.
How to explain that complete volte-face? Why would George V go back on his word given TWICE? The most logical explanation, one that fits with all the information we have, is that he panicked.
Of course, you would not believe it, unless we can present an entry is George V's diary stating literally: "I panicked". Well, in 99,9% of the cases historians lack that kind of evidence. If you think that any conclusion that is not based in that kind of evidence is not valid, forget about history (and journalism, and politics).
And now, why should you keep posting about mines, submarines and deals with Germany, if you have already reached the conclusion that George V's decision was right?
If what George V did was the right thing to do, why should you look for excuses?
George V had already succeeded in having the Government reject the request that they had initiallt granted: Nicholas II and his family would not come to Britain. The door was closed, the drawbridge was raised for them. What does it matter how many mines or how many German submarines were between Russia and Britain, if the Russian Imperial Family would not be allowed to travel there? We might as well discuss the possibility of them settling in the Moon.
The ‘Prisoner of Zenda’ about sums this up.
The government gives its approval to a request for the Romanovs to be allowed to reside in Great Britain. As far as I can see this was an approval in principal. If any of the practical details of the matter- the journey and the living arrangements in Britain had been worked out and documented, where are those details?
Eight days later, the King informed the government of his misgivings regarding this matter. I cannot see a ‘volte-face’ here.
Four days later, acting constitutionally (not unconstitutionally as previously claimed on this forum) the king gives the royal assent to the government’s decision. As he had to give that assent I cannot see a ‘volte-face’ here.
Over the next four days the King continues to express his misgivings regarding the matter of the Romanovs coming to Britain, having fulfilled his constitutional duty in approving this matter. I cannot see a ‘volte-face’ here. I cannot see how by continuing to express his misgivings, the King can be said to have a ‘panicked’.
Where in this series of events has King George V gone back on his word?
Speculation regarding the possible political problems that might have been caused by the Romanovs living in Britain is reasonable, as is speculation regarding the dangers involved in their journey and the political consequences that might have ensued had something gone wrong during that journey.
How ridiculous can this get? An opinion is expressed regarding the King’s conduct, reasons are given for forming that opinion and these are described as ‘excuses’.
Show Posts