Messages

76

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: July 17, 2010, 11:31:16 AM »

Traditionally Princes of Wales did not receive any financial support from the state because they automatically receive the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall (the traditional title of the heir to the throne).
On his death George V left large cash bequests to each of his children but not to his heir - specifically because Edward VIII as Prince of Wales should and had built up large cash assets since he came of age.
The financial agreements made between David and Bertie at the abdication were rushed and were based on David's lie that he had no cash assets (It later emerged that he had around a million in cash some of which he'd already settled on his future wife - that lie was one thing that hardened the attitude of the Palace).
David sold his brother Balmoral and Sandringham (with the payment spread over a number of years) which were his personal property inherited from his father. And Bertie agreed to a set figure each year which if not included in the new civil list he would guarantee to pay David himself.
One of the reasons that the Duke remained in France for much of his life was the favourable tax status he'd been granted there - in all his discussions about a role after the war (he was keen to live in America) was a desire to be in some kind of official diplomatic role in order to gain tax advantages.

77

The Windsors / Re: Prince Henry/Prince Harry of Wales

« on: June 14, 2010, 11:56:18 AM »

Under the 1917 Letters patent - only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is entitled to the HRH, Prince of Great Britain etc. The other male line great grandchildren of a reigning sovereign would be styled Lord/Lady ..... Windsor (or Mountbatten-Windsor as descendants of the Queen with no Royal Style).
However if William and Harry's children are borne during the reign of their grandfather - they would as male line grandchildren of a sovereign be entitled to the HRH.
I suspect that on William's marriage and possibly on Harry's if it happens during the Queen's lifetime she will issue patents stating that their children will be HRH to avoid numerous changes of style during their lifetime.

78

The Windsors / Re: Queen Mary- part 4

« on: June 09, 2010, 11:58:46 AM »

I think it was Queen Mary's friend Lady Airlie who said that both the King and Queen deeply cared for their children but just had no understanding of a child's mind. On the unnatural mother bit from Empress Frederick - unlike Queen Victoria and her eldest daughter it seems Mary found the whole business of pregnancy embarrassing and didn't wallow in it or appear to enjoy it quite as much as  as some other members of the family I don't thiink it necessarily impacted on her affection for her children though.
Interestingly both her and George V doted on their grandchildren and begged to have them with them more often (particularly the York's daughters Elizabeth and Margaret) in part I suspect that George V found girls easier to deal with. There is a note in her diary and a photo i think of Queen Mary building sandcastles with the young Princess Elizabeth. The present Queen seems to have been exceptionally fond of both her grandparents although her cousin Lord Lascelles I think is on record as saying he was rather in awe of his grandfather the King (but unlike the York children who were often with the King and the Queen the Lascelles boys spent less time with them)

79

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: May 31, 2010, 03:46:47 AM »

It is an interesting debate -
Certain members of the establishment believed that he didn't want to succeed by the mid thirties and one person has been quoted as saying he was convinced that Edward had intended to elope with Mrs Simpson but his father's health and imminent death had come to soon.
Another source suggests that Edward initially believed that his succession would make his marriage easier (which on paper it did given that the RMA doesn't apply to a reigning monarch - although the Protestant Oath given the church's view of divorce in 36 soon put paid to his view on that). I do believe that until very late he thought despite the opposition of his family and the establishment (there was some considerable public support for him and the marriage) that he would get his own way - Queen Empress of India the whole bage of tricks as he put it - but with his threat to go if he couldn't marry he played into Baldwin's hands.
I think we have to be extremely careful about allegations of being pro nazi when were talking about the late 1930's. Firstly many many people at all levels of society in Western Europe had appalling memories of the First World War and were exceptionally reluctant to even contemplate a Second one. Secondly the true horror of Nazi Germany was not widely known, was sometimes considered to be exaggerated and if we're being entirely honest there was in a large part of society still a large amount of prejudice about people from Jewish backgrounds. Even the American Government in 1936 was or allowed itself to be conned into letting its athlete's compete in the Olympics despite a strong campaign for a boycott.
George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary were as much pro-appeasement as Edward VIII. Being anti war or pro german in the late 1930's didn't automatically make you a fascist.
Edward's pro-german tendencies were in part based on his experiences in France during the First World War (although he was kept very far from the front line), his visit to Germany in 1913 and his relationship with some of his german cousins.
His decision to visit Nazi Germany after the abdication was in part motivated by his desire to still occupy some kind of role - his staff and those of George VI found that he had trouble coping with the change from being someone whose every hour was planned out to days of idle pleasure - and Germany was one of the few places that invited him. He wasn't the brightest individual and was desperate for someone to show Wallis some kind of public acknowledgement.
They also got involved with some highly dubious characters in the late thirties - in part this was because they'd been cut adrift and had little support from the Foreign office (in the way other British VIP's abroad wouldn't have been) - how much either of them new about the political views and opinions of some of those individuals is hard to prove. Edward in particular was so bitter about his treatment by the government of first Baldwin and then Chamberlain (who disliked Edward and was exceptionally fond of King George and Queen Elizabeth - he once described her as the only Royalty he found he could get on with) and the Royal Family that he was seen as pretty much on easy target by those people who thought to use him.
During the period before the abdication and particularly after his accession Wallis was considered a safe route to the King - she wasn't politically aware and even the most sympathetic of biographers have admitted that her knowledge of how a constitutional monarchy worked was simplistic - the German authorities were well aware of Edward's own personal views (he'd seen some of his cousins including the Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha during his father's funeral) and Ribbentrop was definately encouraged to court "the lady". But so did huge sections of what we would probably call high society - more importantly treating Wallis in this way pleased the King who had a rather sincere sense of chivalry about her and how she was treated.
During the war his behaviour wasn't much better and there are a number of accusations against Edward in particular - some very dodgy currency deals in the Bahamas for example, his lack of discretion and his actions during and after the fall of France which annoyed Churchill in particular. Unfortunately much of this allowed him to be labelled as pro-nazi - his brother King George VI doesn't seem to have taken that too seriously - in fact he joked once about his "Quisling brother".

PS Almost the entire Royal Family dislike Buckingham Palace! George VI and Queen Elizabeth hardly ever stayed there during the war (spending their nights at Windsor and only returning to the Palace during the day. You can't blame them if you read Eleanor Roosevelt's account of conditions there during the War.

80

The Imperial Family / Re: Do you write Romanov or Romanoff?

« on: May 25, 2010, 06:32:02 PM »

I tend to use Holstein Gottorp Romanov (g)! However Romanov if referring as we usually are on this forum to before the revolution, I think i read once somewhere that members of the dynasty in exile had tended to use Romanoff in the early years after the revolution perhaps because that is a better or more accurate translation from the Russian as someone already mentioned.

81

The Windsors / Re: The Diamond Jubilee - 2012

« on: May 25, 2010, 06:22:55 PM »

Given our change of Government following May 6th plans may change they've just slashed 27 million from the Olympic Delivery Authority budget!! However the already additional public holiday is likely to remain (we will get Monday and Tuesday 4th and 5 th June off work) as will the Diamond Jubilee Medal which presumably will go to specific people who've done some service for the nation (I hope that it will recognise community contribution which would fit with the new Governments half baked big society idea). The additional public holiday only applies in England and Wales as it is a devolved power in Scotland and Northern Ireland although they will probably opt for the same day in the end.
I can't see huge state visits to her other countries in the Commonwealth as the Palace has already indicated that these things will be increasingly passed to Charles (and in time William) due to the Queen's age. I wouldn't rule out a low key celebration if for example the Queen becomes unwell or if Prince Philip becomes unwell.

Assuming all remains well with THe Queen then I suspect major events over the first weekend in June (similar to the Golden Jubilee) and a series of public events in the following months up to the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

82

The Windsors / Re: Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York Pt II

« on: May 25, 2010, 06:08:54 PM »

Firstly I am no great fan of Sarah,Duchess of York BUT this story is nothing more than entrapment pure and simple and had a police officer behaved in this manner it would never get to court. The paper involved is hardly known for its hard hitting journalism and whilst in the past its "fake sheik" has exposed some dodgy deals this is very different. He held out a fistful of cash to a woman known to have serious financial problems after treating her to a nice meal and a bucket of wine. Poor judgement yes but certainly nothing criminal with no evidence that she's done anything before to even warrant this kind of sting operation.
Had the Palace wanted to avoid this sort of thing and Sarah's continual financial problems then they should have ensured that in her divorce she was provided with enough income even if she couldn't be trusted with any hard cash. The trouble is you can't cast someone adrift and no matter how sensible or not the individual after occupying the position in life she held as Andrew's wife it is exceptionally difficult to go and get a proper job.
Of course it would be much simpler if we started to limit the HRH and the Royal roles of those not in direct succession making it clear that in those circumstances those individuals would not receive any civil list allowances, would not be able to occupy official Royal residences and in return would be able to pursue their own careers and would not undertake royal duties

83

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Who is the rightful heir?

« on: May 18, 2010, 10:55:22 AM »

Actually moot point or not - it seems that the Orthodox mother issue is highly debatable - Grand Duke Vladimir's children Kyril, Andrei and Boris were undoubtedly treated as dynasts irrespective of their mother's religious affiliations as were the Constantinovichi children.

If a minister did write a legal opinion on it for Nicholas II I would be interested in the date given that after Kyril's marriage Nicholas deseperately wanted to exclude him but most legal opinion said he couldn't do that a contrary view from an ambitious minister might have been most welcome whether accurate or not.

84

The Windsors / Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....

« on: May 05, 2010, 09:01:47 AM »

I hope you didn't think i was having a go with the "churlish" remark Lindelle - i was simply stating that in reality countries like Australia would have to pay out considerably more if they had a resident monarch or president and the annual costs of the rare state visit probably amounts to a few cents per household.
Personally I am rather neutral on whether Australia, New Zealand and Canada should become Republics - I would hope if they did they would do as other former Dominions have done and retain the link with the UK and the British Crown via the Commonwealth. I have to say that since Dominion status and the Westminster conference - they might as well be!!

The financial arguements apply in any country - whatever form of head of state you have you have to pay for it somehow.

85

The Windsors / Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....

« on: May 04, 2010, 10:57:09 AM »

A few points about some of the recent comments which I've read with interest.

Whoever your head of state is (president or monarch) it would be expected for the State to pay them some form of salary and the costs of their official duties.

As far as I am aware those countries of which the British Monarch remains Head of State of: Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc - Do not pay anything for the annual running costs of the British Monarch just the costs of their Governor General who in effect is their 'real' Head of State. However when the Monarch or a member of the family visit those countries they pay something of the costs involved (in exactly the same way they do when other heads of state visit).
If those countries wished for their own resident Head of State that is something they are quite able to manage on their own and they can pick up the tab for it by just translating their Governor Generals into an elective and non political President.

It is rather churlish to moan about spending money on a state visit that happens pretty infrequently and why should a visit by their own, if foreign, monarch be any less welcome than a visit by any other head of state - I suspect that a visit by the President of the United States would be slightly more expensive.

On the Coronation - most British royal occassions are fairly recent inventions courtesy of Edward VII who though a King should be on display! The Coronation is pretty much unchanged in form though - with certain changes in styles to reflect constitutional and religious changes - for example the Protestant Oath only refers to the UK not to any other states.
The cost will no doubt be an issue - but i suspect will be a fraction of what we'll be spending on the 2012 Olympics and if we're that desperate we could always put the broadcast rights up for the highest bidder and take a bigger percentage on the souvenirs. Personally I hope Charles doesn't make too many changes - he can't with the oaths because they are prescribed by Statute.
The hereditary peers aren't a vital role - and could be removed with ease - using only those hereditary peers who hold hereditary offices in relation to the crown for example would cut the numbers to a handful, arguably there's no need for all 650 Members of the Commons to attend either!
Given how infrequently we have them I don't thing it matters a great deal about how relevant to modern Britain it all is....a rather nice archaic ritual that reminds us of our history and that happens probably once or twice in most people's lifetimes - we had only four coronations in the 20th Century (Edward VII, George V and VI and Elizabeth II) only three in the 19th (George IV, William IV and Victoria) and the chances are we'll only have three or four in the 21st.

On Camilla's background and the "diluted" nature of a Royal Family that's married with people not of a Royal background - it is a load of old rubbish - English and Scots King's have only had a very recent history of only marrying equally. There was no pressure on the present Queen to marry a Prince - in fact his foreign background was more of a hindrance in the post-war period - both her parents would initially have preferred a British aristocrat.

86

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, discussion and pictures Part 2

« on: May 04, 2010, 10:07:29 AM »

The last member of the House to be born a Grand Duchess was Anastasia in 1901. All the other daughters of the Imperial family were great grandchildren of a Tsar therefore were Princesses of Russia (including Maria Kirillovna and Kira Kirillovna who were later styled Grand Duchess after their father's assumption of the Imperial titles).

87

The Windsors / Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....

« on: April 22, 2010, 07:03:27 AM »

Actually it is debatable about the amount of influence a consort has historically offered.
Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was hugely influential on both her husband and daughter probably the most influential consort for good and bad since Prince Albert and before that you'd probably have to look to George III's mother, the Princess Dowager of Wales and before her Henriette Maria of France wife of Charles I.
Queen Alexandra's influence as such was minimal in fact her husband having waited so long and having been so excluded by his mother was extremely jealous of his position and shared very little beyond the social with his wife after his accession. Her influence on her children was stronger  - her natural anti prussian/german views had far less effect on her husband (who already loathed his nephew the Kaiser anyway) and certainly wasn't shared by her children unlike the effect of Marie Feodorovna's views had on her husband and children. She also babied all her children into their late middle age (in common with many of the descendants of Christian IX of Denmark), she also could be held responsible for her children's lack of any great thirst for knowledge but certainly both her sons adored her. She was in many ways the Diana of her day adored by the public from the moment of her arrival in the UK, beautiful and very domestic but she wasn't clever or particularly witty but her influence on the monarchy and on British life was minor.

Queen Mary never really got over the real love of her life, the British Crown, her influence on George V was also pretty minimal, she subdued her tastes and interests to his throughout their married life and only really embraced her passions after his death. She was essentially a town person and it is quite noticeble that she never returned to Balmoral in widowhood. Her influence on her children was again subordinate to the views of George V - her children, think the Duke of Windsor, commented on how different she was when they were left alone with her. Her passion for art and history was confined pretty much to things with Royal connections.

I suspect that were she to become Queen - Camilla would actually be a much more traditional Queen Consort. But I wouldn't underestimate her ability to influence things, Charles clearly adores her and I suspect that she gives him an often much needed dose of the "real world".

88

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: April 21, 2010, 08:17:12 PM »

Actually he did and it was very clear that Nicholas II believed that legally the marriage was morganatic just unlike the marriages of his brother and uncle Paul it wasn't a disgrace.
It's worth looking at the law on this issue:
Alexander III in 1889 issued a decree that made any marriage by any member of the Imperial Family to anyone of non royal status illegal and invalid.
In 1911 Nicholas amended the law again:
The Lord Emperor has seen fit to permit marriages to persons not possessing corresponding rank of not all Members of the Imperial Family, but only of Princes and Princesses of the Blood Imperial...Princes as well as Princesses of the Blood Imperial, upon contracting a marriage with a person not possessing corresponding rank, shall personally retain the title and privileges which are theirs by birth, with the exception of their right to succession from which they shall have abdicated before entering the marriage. In relation to the categorization of the marriages of Princes and Princesses of the Blood Imperial, the Lord Emperor has seen fit to recognize only two categories in these marriages: (a) equal marriages, i.e. those contracted with persons belonging to a Royal or Ruling House, and (b) unequal marriages, i.e. those contracted with persons not belonging to a Royal or Ruling House, and will not recognize any other categories.
Also the original rules were left in place within the Fundamental laws = that a person of the Imperial family who has entered into a marriage alliance with a person not possessing corresponding rank, that is, not belonging to a Royal or Ruling House, cannot pass on to that person, or to any posterity that may issue from such a marriage, the rights which belong to the Members of the Imperial family.
there is a difference between that note and what was enshrined in law which only emphasies that Grand Duke's can't marry unequally at all.

And this one:
Children born of a marriage between a member of the Imperial Family and a person not of corresponding rank, that is, not belonging to a Royal or Ruling House, shall have no right of succession to the Throne.
In this case Tatiana was required to renounce not because of tradition but because of the 1911 decree - unless she renounced she wouldn't receive consent to marry -  "Her Highness the Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna has presented to Us over Her own sign manual, a renunciation of the right to succession to the Imperial Throne of All the Russias belonging to Her as a member of the Imperial House,"
What Nicholas II said is a matter of conjecture as is his behaviour at the wedding itself - but Tatiana like Nicholas' niece Irena renounced their rights on marrying unequally in return they retained their style and titles however their children were not regarded as Russian Dynasts due to the morganatic nature of their parents marriage.

It was not uncommon for women of the IF to renounce their rights to the throne when they married. That doesn't say anything about the question of Princess Tatianas marriage being equal or not. Nicholas II never made an officiel statement about this. He said to KR in private that he would never consider the marriage to be unequal.
[/quote]

89

Nicholas II / Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917

« on: April 21, 2010, 07:54:24 PM »

The problem is the British Government's desperate desire (which was shared by France) that Russia stay in the war. Initially the Government was keen to offer asylum because the request came informally from the Provisional Government. Public reaction persuaded the King who in turn questioned his government about the offer and whether it should be rescinded. By then the Provisional Government had been forced to give guarantees that Nicholas and Alexandra remain in Russia to a strident Soviet (its worth remembering that the Soviet had called for their arrest just a day or so after the abdication and would also call later for the arrests of the Dowager Empress and Grand Duke Michael - who the provisional government had allowed to remain at liberty).
To get a British war ship through the Baltic would have been hazardous enough even had the Imperial German authorities co-operated. But the risk of landing on Russian territory an armed contigent who would then have to travel to the Alexander Palace over come the Soviet and the Provisional Government guards and then take the Imperial family and their entourage back would have been immense - if it failed it could have ended in a blood bath. The Provisional Government was barely holding on and it's commitment to the war was a significant fact in its lack of authority and its inability to push Russia on a path of democratic change once it became clear that the British had taken such action they'd have had no choice but to deny any knowledge or part in it, such an action could have easily forced them out of the war.

I do think that the Provisional Government would have been able to let the children go and I suspect had feelers on those lines been put out in March or April  - many of the neutral states would have been more willing to help - Sweden or Norway for example. I always believe that the Provisional Government was stuck between a rock and a hard place with the imperial family but Nicholas and Alexandra were under guard and showed no great desire to leave Russia immediately equally many members of their family who weren't under arrest were just as reluctant and sadly many of them left it far too late.
And by Summer it was clear to everyone that Kerensky's government was going to collapse it was more a question of when than if and that was his last real chance to help Nicholas and his family by moving them somewhere nearer a border which might have made flight or rescue more likely but he didn't.

I totally agree about countries that denied jews admission prior and during the second world war.  Your posting was very interesting but I still think that if the British had send a reasonable force, they could have extracted the Imperial family.  As for King George, he probably wasnt thinking so much of his country as his familly's position and his own monarchy. I think that Nicholas had a complete lack of ability to foresee consequences, both during the war and following.

90

Nicholas II / Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917

« on: April 21, 2010, 11:51:53 AM »

Craven and rotten - well far less craven and rotten than that long long long list of countries who refused to give european jews entry visas as Germany increased its anti jewish legislation through the 1930s.
You do have to see it from George V's point of view - and his overriding responsibility was to do what Nicholas II couldn't do or failed to do which was to ensure his country's survival and the survival of the monarchy. That isn't craven or particularly rotten by the standards of the time. The war had dragged on, hundreds of thousands were dying and the British establishment was facing a growing left. With hindsight George V and the British throne seem completely unaisailable but that is with the benefit of hindsight and isn't an accurate picture of the situation. George V's biggest advantage and the key to his survival was his willingness to continue being what he became most admired for - a rather dull and dutiful man.
The interesting part of this is that no matter how many times you read the documents from the British Foreign office and compare them with activities in Russia at the time to show how narrow the window was for Nicholas' escape and the failure of it can't be laid at the British Government or King's feet.
Here's a selection of the UK foreign office files, reports and telegrams relating to the abdication and offer of Asylum
16 March 1917 Report that Empress and her children in Alexander Palace under guard.
16 March 1917 Report suggesting whereabouts of Tsar unknown
18 March 1917 Report suggesting future of Tsar
19 March 1917 Telegram to the Tsar from the King expressing distress at the turn of events, and professing continued friendship
20 March 1917 Miliukhov's enquiry as to the possibility of the Tsar going to England.
21 March 1917 Report of conversation with Dowager Empress about the Tsar's plans, and telegram stating that Tsar given permission to go to Tsarskoe Selo and then to Port Romanoff
21 March 1917 Report of possible arrest of Tsar
21 March 1917 Report that Tsar deprived of his liberty and placed under escort
21 March 1917 Telegram concerning the advisability of the removal of the Tsar from Russia, and the feasibility of him travelling to England
21 March 1917 Telegram conveying the King's offer of asylum to the Tsar
22 March 1917 Minutes of War Cabinet decision to issue invitation to Tsar to come to England for the duration of the war.
23 March 1917 Telegram concerning the provisional invitation to the Tsar to come to England
24 March 1917 Note that Tsar at Headquarters Staff
24 March 1917 Assurances received as regards safety of Tsar
24 March 1917 Telegram concerning request to Russian government to give Tsar safe conduct to Port Romanoff for departure to England.
25 March 1917 Assurance from Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the Tsar's safety
26 March 1917 Report that King's telegram not delivered to Tsar through fear of misinterpretation
28 March 1917 Thanks conveyed from Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs at being asked to cancel King's telegram
30 March 1917 Letter expressing the King's personal friendship for the Tsar, but doubting the advisability of the Imperial Family coming to England
2 April 1917 History of proposal that Tsar come to England
9 April 1917 Report of conversation with Kerensky concerning delay of Tsar's departure from Russia pending examination of seized documents
13 April 1917  Report that public opinion against Tsar coming to England, and against the King for supporting him. Suggests Tsar go elsewhere
15 April 1917  Telegram expressing agreement with view that Tsar should not come to England if any danger of anti-monarchist movement
17 April 1917 Letter stating that the King, while devoted to the Tsar, was now held to be anxious that the invitation not be taken up, due to public opinion
22 April 1917 Letter expressing relief that British invitation dropped, and opinion that the Imperial Family would not be welcome in France because of the Tsarina's German birth and leanings
23 April 1917 Suggestion that Tsar could go to France for duration of the war
28 April 1917 Parliamentary Question concerning the future domicile of the Tsar
The formal offer was made on the 2rd of march as late as 9th April Kerensky was being asked about delays to the Tsar's departure. Those early critical delays weren't coming from the British end - British doubts only surfaced in mid April culminating in the offer being withdrawn. In fact by the time Britain withdrew the offer the Soviet had already demanded and received assurances.

According to the French Ambassador - Miliukov thought the offer on the 23rd March only a week or so after the abdication was too late for the deposed sovereigns due to the growing anarchy and the power of the Soviet.
In his memoirs the ambassador notes this for March 24th - Saturday, March 24, 1917.
"The Soviet has heard that the King of England is offering the Emperor and Empress the hospitality of British territory. At the bidding of the "Maximalists" the Provisional Government has had to pledge its word to keep the fallen sovereigns in Russia. The Soviet has gone further and appointed a commissary to "supervise the detention of the imperial family."
Sunday March 25th:
"The Provisional Government have informed the Soviet that, with the approval of Buchanan, they have not given the Emperor the telegram in which King George offers the imperial family the hospitality of British territory.
But the executive committee of the Soviet still has its doubts and has posted "revolutionary" guards at Tsarskoïe-Selo and on the roads leading from it, to prevent any surreptitious abduction of the sovereigns."

In effect there was less than a month for Lvov, Kerensky and Miliukov to have the imperial family moved and they didn't do it. Not because of anything their allies did but rather their own inability to risk the widespread condemnation amongst the soviet that the move would have caused. It is clear from other stuff that the French (where there were huge celebrations by the socialist left over the Russian Revolution) weren't keen on offering asylum (despite a more sympathetic ambassador than Britain) and the neutrals didn't offer till 1918.