Messages

136

The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)

« on: August 24, 2009, 06:37:00 AM »

The letter isn't any particular great find most of it is quoted in the Vickers biography certainly the comments about what a curse black sheep are and the line about sending Wallis the note saying she was sorry she couldn't receive her! And he ignores a point about Paul of Yugoslavia - although Bertie and Elizabeth went along with the government view of him (churchill was scathing of him) but privately they certainly didn't share the public view of Paul and had far more sympathy with him. They arranged for his wife Olga to visit England to be with her sister Marina after the Duke of Kent was killed and they met with Paul and Olga during the South African tour although the visit was highly confidential.

137

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alix dislikes by british royals?

« on: August 24, 2009, 06:28:00 AM »

Certainly and Nicholas' lack of interest in Princess Margaret of Prussia might well have not helped the Empress Frederick's opinon of Alix. My understanding too was that she tended to be liked and admired by those family members with whom she was of a similar age as you pointed out in your post.
I think Poliakoff was basing his opinions on very little information and certainly it wouldn't be accurate to say there was no sympathy there at all however there were those amongst her wider family who were aware of her faults shall we say. The problem that always struck me with the very minor appearance of the Imperial family was that the image of Alexandra tended to stick with the long held public view of a rather imperious and austere figure with little human sympathy which whatever her faults is very unfair.
It's also interesting to wonder how much the opinions of The Dowager Empress and the Grand Duchess Xenia affected the attitude of the immediate British Royal family towards Alix.

138

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alix dislikes by british royals?

« on: August 23, 2009, 05:56:51 PM »

without the book in front of me I think it was George who wrote in his diary something along the lines of Alicky had been very stupid but I can't quite remember the exact quote. Certainly the Empress Frederick (her aunt) thought she had become far too imperious, Queen Victoria had warned her to not be too proud and had reminded her of the need to gain the love of her subjects. I don't think there is any evidence of an active dislike anywhere though!

139

The Windsors / Re: The Annual Royal Financial Report

« on: July 05, 2009, 12:23:26 PM »

Firstly there is always an outcry over the costs every time they are published but that outcry tends to ignore some of the more factual aspects of the civil list (which is in effect the main issue). The civil list has been frozen for some years because the Palace had built up a cash surplus on it in the 1990's therefore as expenses and costs have risen the Crown has been spending the surplus and in effect the current debate is more about the Palace setting out their stall for the next round of negotiations for the new Civil list which will probably be with a different government and will also be in the run up to the London Olympics and the Queen's diamond jubilee. Despite the press reporting the vast majority of the Civil List which is in effect the Queen's salary is spent on salary costs and pensions of those people the Crown employs in order for the Head of State to function. Government penny pinching could be argued to have been responsible for the backlog of repairs to the occupied Royal Palaces which means that those repair costs are now spiralling. I don't doubt that in terms of the number of employees the entire operation couldn't do with a proper look at how many of those staff are essential though. In financial terms the amount we spend is a very small proportion of GDP. As to comments about Britain's financial state well we've borrowed a lot more than many other countries its true but that's partially because our economy, for right or wrong, is more exposed to the current crisis than some of our European neighbours because in the last two decades more of our economy has been based on service industries like the financial sector which has been so badly hit over the last few years.

140

Nicholas II / Re: Do you agree with Winston Churchill's summary of Nicholas?

« on: June 30, 2009, 05:57:46 PM »

 My apologies i was assuming it was a post second world war comment hence my original comments about his reputation - if it was in the twenties then i think my point about his background and his willingness to go against the trend probably still stand. Personally I think Russia's contribution is often overlooked for a variety of reasons however the size of that contribution if i am honest relies very little on the personal abilities of Nicholas II.

mcdnab, I agree with a lot of what you said and perhaps I should have put the date Churchill wrote these tasty tidbits of prose in my original post.  Unfortunately, I can't find that date now, perhaps 1928.  This is part of the fascination, why people hold certain beliefs at certain times.  In the '20s and '30s it was not common to pitch a semi-favorable review on NII unless you knew him well (Gilliard, Hanbury-Wms, etc).  So it is intriguing that he voices an unpopular opinion.  I like your point about the discomfort of speaking well of a former ally-gone-bad, so to speak, and that must really weigh in on the still-popular view that the Russian Imperial Army was of no consequence.  I just asked a very well read friend of mine why he thought the eastern front lines in WWI and WWII were in such different places, and he told me that he thought that most of WWI took place in France and W. Europe. 

Churchill may well have felt he was addressing the deficit with his comment.

Yes, I do think he was trying to fix an unfairness of attitude, and provoke thought.  And he succeeded in the latter!

141

Nicholas II / Re: Do you agree with Winston Churchill's summary of Nicholas?

« on: June 23, 2009, 04:53:06 PM »

You make some interesting points to answer a few of them -
No it doesn't preclude insight however it can often mean that the gifted writer and orator's opinions are taken more seriously. Also there's the prevailing view of Churchill to take into account in his writing - firstly that after the outbreak of the second world war he was seen as one individual who had been right about european politics (and to be fair he was right) despite facing harsh criticisms for those views during the thirties that has often meant in post war Britain that he has been viewed as being right about many other things when he wasn't. He was undeniably a gifted wartime leader but he was an average peacetime prime minister. His historical writing is significantly  dictated by his personality, background and political views all of which would have leant him a more sympathetic view of someone in Nicholas II's position. Personally I find it frequently dodgy and luckily it is merely one of many views and interpretations of history around - to "LIVE" history is no guarantee that you will report it fairly particularly when you have an ego the size of Churchills and were naturally, he was only human, concerned about your own place in history.
I think he naturally felt that Russia's role in WW1 is often overlooked and there are significant historical reasons for it - in the West the collapse of Russia into revolution eventually forcing them out was a bitter blow partially because a two front war was putting enormous pressure on Germany - in those circumstances it is perhaps natural that the men who wrote the initial history of conflict just like Churchill weren't going to give credit to a former ally with an unacceptable government who was seen as having betrayed the allies and to many of those men with only the reports of British and French Ambassadors to go on it was perhaps natural to also place significant blame for that collapse on to Nicholas II's shoulders. Churchill may well have felt he was addressing the deficit with his comment. In the twenties and thirties with a communist government in power again there was little political capital to be made out of looking back at Imperial Russia's contribution to the Great War, in the post war period again Russia was hardly likely to receive credit for her role in the first war though in fairness I don't think her heroic contribution to the second world war is as overlooked.


But  a) brilliant oratory does not preclude insight, b) many would not dismiss his comments upon history, much of which he lived, as 'lousy', c) being a monarchist or anti-communist also doesn't preclude insight: on the contrary, such a perspective might countermand the prevailing attitude of the time, which was deeply influenced by the Russian aristocracy's incohesive dispersal across the globe and by the controlled release of documents by Soviet gov't.  d) Churchill's role in the Dardanelles was certainly nothing he was proud of, but it would be unfair to forget that his attitude was part of a trenchant view from multiple British generations that they maintain influence over the seas in that part of the world.  I agree that Churchill may have felt a tie with N in the defeats they both suffered at that time in history, but I add again that experience can bring insight, not necessarily prejudice.  For example, if you removed the chapters discussing hemophilia/parenting hemophiliacs out of Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, would you not have a far inferior book?

So I feel that World War I did contribute some to the start of the Revolution, so IMO you have to factor that in, which Churchill didn't. Just my views.

And Imperial Angel, I agree with what you said, but I was wondering what people thought about Churchill's comment as he phrases it.  I suppose that you are saying that he limited his examples to ones that prove his point.  But he does say that N was neither a great prince nor a great soldier, so he might agree with us more than we realize, if only we could sit down and chat with him.
[/quote]

142

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Is Diana, Princess of Wales Related to Empress Alexandra?

« on: June 22, 2009, 01:24:13 PM »

This has been answered elsewhere on this forum

Diana Spencer, Nicholas II, Charles Prince of Wales and Alexandra Feodorovna have numerous lines of descent from Edward IV of England (through his eldest granddaugther Margaret Tudor Queen of Scots as does every reigning monarch in Europe.

1) Charles Prince of Wales (maternal line direct)
Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scotland - Mary Stuart Queen of Scots - James VI - Elizabeth of Bohemia - Sophia of Hannover - George 1 - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward Duke of Kent - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles Prince of Wales
2) Charles Prince of Wales (paternal line direct)
Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scotland - Mary Stuart Queen of Scots - James VI - Elizabeth of Bohemia - Sophia of Hannover - George 1 - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward Duke of Kent - Victoria - Alice of Great Britain - Victoria of Hesse and By Rhine - Princess Alice of Battenburg - Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark - Charles Prince of Wales.
3) Diana Spencer (direct illegitimate line - though she has several lines of descent from Charles II of England and Scotland)
Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scots - Mary Stuart Queen of Scots - James VI - Charles I - Charles II - Henry Duke of Grafton - Charles 2nd Duke of Grafton - Lady Isabella Fitzroy - Lord Hugh Seymour Conway - Horace Beauchamp Seymour - Adelaide Seymour - Charles 6th Earl Spencer - Albert Edward 7th Earl Spencer - John 8th Earl Spencer - Lady Diana Spencer.
4) Alexandra Feodorovna (direct maternal line)
Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scots - Mary Stuart Queen of Scots - James VI - Elizabeth of Bohemia - Sophia of Hannover - George 1 - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward Duke of Kent - Victoria - Alice of Great Britain - Alexandra of Hesse/the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna.
5) Nicholas II (Romanov direct through Prussia and Hannover)
Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scots - Mary Stuart Queen of Scots - James VI - Elizabeth of Bohemia - Sophia of Hannover - Sophia Charlotte of Hannover - Frederick William I of Prussia - August William of Prussia - Frederick William II of Prussia - Frederick William III of Prussia - Charlotte of Prussia (Empress Alexandra of Russia) - Alexander II of Russia - Alexander III of Russia - Nicholas II of Russia
6) Nicholas II (second line through Prussia and Hannover)
Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scots - Mary Stuart Queen of Scots - James VI - Elizabeth of Bohemia - Sophia of Hannover - George I of Great Britain - Sophia Dorothea of Hannover and GB -  August William of Prussia - Frederick William II of Prussia - Frederick William III of Prussia - Charlotte of Prussia (Empress Alexandra of Russia) - Alexander II of Russia - Alexander III of Russia - Nicholas II of Russia

Addiitionally Nicholas II and CHarles Prince of Wales share lines of descent through Christian IX of Denmark.
Charles - Philip - Andrew - William - Christian IX -
Charles - Elizabeth - George VI - George V - Alexandra - Christian IX
Nicholas II - Marie (Dagmar) - Christian IX
Both Christian IX and his wife Louise had British Royal descent from Edward IV.

143

Nicholas II / Re: Do you agree with Winston Churchill's summary of Nicholas?

« on: June 19, 2009, 07:31:09 PM »

I think firstly that you have to accept that a) Churchill was a brilliant orator both in speech and in writing, b) that he was a lousy historian c) that his approach was on the whole from a devotedly monarchist point of view and from a seriously anti communist point of view and that d) his own actions in the first world war had been seriously questionable and therefore his sympathies with other "victims" of that war was stronger than it perhaps should have been. that e) the perception of Russian actions and successes in WWI was always going to be suceptable to revisionism due to the long standing imperial rivalry between Britain and Russia despite the close ties between the two Reigning families,

144

Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas II was Unprepared to Rule. Why?

« on: June 19, 2009, 07:17:43 PM »

Nicholas was certainly personally brave but that doesn't make a great monarch. He was terribly young to succeed and that was terribly bad luck for him. He fell in love with a woman completely unsuited to the position of Empress who despite the influence of her grandmother soon adapted to the idea of a monarchy that had in her view no need to be "loved" or "respected"  by the people. Nicholas' character, bearing and intelligence was completely unsuited to the position he was called to occupy and he had added handicaps he took after his mother's family in looks and stature which further reduced his capabilities to dominate his own family let alone the Russian Empire. Ironically despite his failures he remained committed to the autocracy egged on by his wife when others of his family might have thought a compromise was most likely to succeed.

145

The Tudors / Re: King Henry VIII, was he a bipolar tyrant or just obssessed with wanting a son?

« on: June 11, 2009, 05:05:43 PM »

i really dislike the modern tendency to impose diseases and their symptoms on historical people no doctor or psychiatrist would diagnose a patient without having the chance to treat them on a personal level but its perhaps natural that we do it.

Henry VIII was arguably a spoilt child by our standards with the removal of his elder brother to Ludlow he was brought up in an almost entirely female household where as the male child was the "STAR" attraction. Unusually for a prince of his period he was brought up largely by his mother and in the presence of his sisters. He clearly doted on his mother Elizabeth of York and I think you could reasonably argue that her early death at the same time as his elder brother died denoted an end to his otherwise happy and contented childhood. Some have argued that his desire for an heir, his search for the perfect family life was largely dictated by his wish to return to his happy childhood days.

Politically no monarch would regard lacking a male heir as acceptable but that was intensified in a country were the reigning dynasty was a new one and when the country had suffered a civil war over dynastic squabbles about the succession. Also it is worth bearing in mind that for a very pious man the lack of an heir, which was seen as punishment by God, was hard to take.

Henry saw himself as the perfect image of the renaissance prince and went out of his way to prove it - but like many active sporty men an injury in his late thirties combined with an inability to adapt his diet to a more sedentary lifestyle saw his weight and health problems increase, which may well have affected his mood and behaviour.

His increasing despotism was due to the simple reason that as head of both church and state he was all powerful domestically which freed him from the constraints of his ancestors = one of the main attractions of luthers statements and reliance on biblical teaching was that unlike Popes Kings did appear in the bible...to many monarchs protestantism had attractions - certainly Henry was essentially a catholic to his death but he was aware that as head of the church in England his powers and therefore the power of his dynasty was increased it also played well with the general xenophobia of his subjects.

Despot he might have been but he died immensely popular and well regarded as a "great" king.

146

The Tudors / Re: Mary Seymour

« on: May 29, 2009, 04:30:24 AM »

Its largely suspected that she died young - its not surprising that so little is known about her. Her mother Queen Katherine was dead, her father an attainted traitor, her uncle the Regent was also brought down - in other words she had no one to fight her corner. Had her mother lived then she would have had a comfortable life because Katherine various dower incomes would have provided for her even after her husbands execution. The fact that Catherine Suffolk was complaining about the costs of the child suggest that no-one really cared for her and that she hadn't been provided for financially following her parents death

147

Films and TV shows about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: The Lost Prince

« on: May 22, 2009, 05:27:52 PM »

I think as always the issues with this film is that Poliakoff's intentions are about the story from the point of view of Prince John, the imaginings if you like of a young boy, whose recollections of his cousins are based on their very occassional family visits. Indeed his observations are actually quite accurate and i think prove that in terms of the British Royal Family Poliakoff did his homework = King George's desperation to maintain his position, his determination that his sons behave themselves and proved themselves worthy, Queen Mary's obsession with family history, her delight in objet  with a royal connection, her view of her husband as sovereign before being just a man.
His view of the Romanov's is perhaps a romantic one the relationship between George and Mary and Nicholas and Alexandra wasn't actually that close in fact - perhaps because after the death of Christian IX of Denmark family get togethers were rare - its worth remembering that Queen Alexandra herself bemoaned her children's lack of enthusiasm for visiting Denmark in contrast to her sister Dagmar's childrens delight in the freedom enjoyed by a vist to amama and apapa. If you read Queen Mary's official biography from the 1950's which was written with access to her diaries and letters you can record the abject sorrow of Queen Alexndra and Princess Victoria (who was the closest to her Russian cousins) on news of Nicky's death and certainly George and Mary shared that sorrow - George in fact went out of his way to be kind to Xenia for example throughout the remainder of his life as did Princess Victoria.
I take it most people object to the portrayal of Alexandra Feodorovna rather than anything else - well to a child she may well have seemed haughty arrogant and aloof - most women of her age and background would have done. And according to many of her closest relations she did appear like that and many of them including King George V considered that her behaviour had been a driving force behind what eventually happened - as recorded in his diary, and letters from Marie of Roumania to Grand Duchess Xenia, even the Dowager Empress considered her unhinged by 1916 as did most of the Romanov family.
My complaint about the film from a historic point of view is more to do with George's decision over sanctuary for the deposed Tsar and his family - it relies on the romantic image of the family we have and ignores the fact that to many in the west including most importantly in 1917/18 the US that Nicholas was regarded as a tyrant, it also ignores the political implications for George V of offering sanctuary to a woman who might have been his first cousin but who was also the sister of a prominant German and the sister in law of the Kaiser's brother - it also came at a time when domestically the British Royal Family was under increasing scrutiny due to their close relations with the "enemy". It also like man on this forum ignores the reality of the situation in Russia where the minute rumours of the initial British offer was heard in St Petersburg the soviet members of the Duma were calling on the provisional government to guarantee that the former Emperor would not leave Russia and were still protesting that the Dowager Empress and Grand Duke Michael were at liberty...had Lvov and then Kerensky really been desperate to ensure the safety of the Imperial Family then they would have shipped them to Finland almost the minute the Tsar returned to the Alexander Palace because it was probably their only chance of escape.
Returning to the film = Poliakoff's premise as i said was to show events through the eyes of a little boy who was destined to die young and i think it remains a charming and deeply moving piece of drama and drama isn't history though history is often drama!

148

Marie Feodorovna / Re: Marie Feodorovna and her grandchildren

« on: May 08, 2009, 06:07:58 PM »

I've been flicking through this thread so hope i've not missed anything - but from every thing that i've read I don't believe that you could consider MF to have been anything other than a devoted mother and grandmother however that doesn't mean she didn't have faults. Alexandra's shall we say retreat into family life and her increasing isolation of her family particularly after Alexei's birth and her increasingly difficult relationship with MF certainly restricted MF's contact with OTMAA however MF's own letters and the letters of her granddaughters to her suggest that it was a fond relationship. It's also worth bearing in mind that Xenia and Sandro with a large brood saw more of Xenia's mother therefore its not a surprise that she might appear closer to their children than Nicholas's. My understanding is that after the war and revolution when she met Natasha, Michael's widow she spent a time playing with George but that was about the only contact we're aware of may be signifcant although its now known that far from being completely excluded Natasha and one assumes George remained at least for a while in contact with Xenia and who's to know whether that contact included some contact with MF. To be fair I don't believe Natasha herself helped matters ironic that both Nicholas and Michael would fall in love with women who would so alienate their family.

149

The Windsors / Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

« on: May 08, 2009, 05:46:03 PM »

Oh i think there's probably a number of suspects on that one. As to the Ghurka issue well Joanna's played a very good game for no doubt very honourable intent but she's had help from a government that has presented a pretty valid case in a pretty appalling way.

150

The Windsors / Re: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

« on: April 23, 2009, 08:29:11 PM »

without wishing to attack anyone's views or opinions i would like to make a few points:
Firstly with or without the monarchy Britains tourism income would be the same - Versailles, Shonbrunn or The Hermitage don't attract any less visitors because they happen to be situated within Republics.
Secondly arguably Europe's most stable nations of the last three hundred years are all constitutional or parliamentary monarchies.
Thirdly the cost to the UK of its monarchy is not high even if you include the hidden figures covering security, and the maintenance of the occupied Royal Palaces (in effect Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. (the other Royal residences in use being fairly recent and privately owned by the Queen - Balmoral and Sandringham). An executive presidency as in France or the US would probably cost us tax payers the same or more whilst a figurehead presidency such as in Ireland or in Germany would probably be slightly less expensive.
Fourthly great privilege certainly great wealth debatable - the Queen does have a considerable fortune but given that following any abolition much of her fortune would be regarded as state property and that many of her assets she is not free to dispose of she is not by any means the richest Britain. Nor given her public position can she even live in a way that many of her wealthier subjects can.
Fifthly:Philip may have made mistakes in some of his public comments over the years and as a father he might have made different choices - but to be fair to the man i prefer George VI's view that given his appalling childhood he'd turned out okay and made the best of a bad situation.
Sixthly: I dislike intensely some of the xenophobia that creeps into everyday discussions of our Royal family - it would be absolutely unacceptable to decribe a second generation immigrant to this country in the way that many people decry the royal family as german - the Queen's last ancestors to be born outside the United Kingdom are her great grandmother Alexandra of Denmark and her great grandfather Franz of Teck both of whom spent the bulk of their adult life in the UK.
Seventhly Most of those individuals who favour a republic only have a vague idea of what that would mean in effect and would probably be the first to complain about what the politicians came up with. If as many complain its about providing an equal society then they are living in cloud cuckoo land - no society is truly equal - most republics have some form of elite whether its about individual wealth or belonging to a certain political party.
Eighth Whilst the monarchy has many faults largely that has more to do with those that surround it, by an increasingly intrusive press (that most of us commoners would find untenable) and by an increasingly purient public. On one hand we want value for money, on the other we want a bit of glamour and pomp and circumstance. but then we want to see the Queen doing the weekly shop on her bike at M & S whilst still turning up in her 80's to gladhand some of the countries dullest and uninteresting individuals - God help the woman and her family!