Klementiy Nagorniy

[BeautyQueen]

Now that you think about it, there is no accounts of how exactly this incident happened. I want to know more.

[LisaDavidson]

Now that you think about it, there is no accounts of how exactly this incident happened. I want to know more.

This is nonsensical. If the only accounts of this alleged instance are heresay from a proven unreliable witness, what more is there to know? The evidence is very strongly in favor of it never happening at all. Or am I missing something here?

[Annie]

From Sophie B.'s "Left Behind", Chapter XI:

Monsieur Gilliard heard some details of the Imperial Family's detention at Ekaterinburg (as I also did later) from the Emperor's valet, Tchemodouroff. The man had been saved by having fallen ill and being taken from the lpatieff house to the prison infirmary......

While Tchemodouroff was still in the lpatieff house two of the servants, Nagorny and the footman Sednev, were taken away. They had not been able to watch with equanimity the Kommissar's rude treatment of the Tsarevich. Their faces betrayed their feelings and they paid for this with their lives.....

It was hard to keep any illusions after hearing Tchemodouroff's poignant recital, but though the faces I had seen at Ekaterinburg had inspired me with the direst forebodings, still I tried to cling to the hope that it was impossible that anyone could have been so brutal as to murder in cold blood a sick woman, young girls, and an ailing boy.


So, there was one person who had lived with the family until the end who lived to tell the stories.(Nicholas's valet, Tchemodouroff) Lvov was NOT the source.

Sophie doesn't describe what the rude treatment of the tsarevich was, but evidently Gilliard and Gibbes heard and told more detail.

Everyone should read "Left Behind". I have found quite a lot of valuable info in that first hand account, and I just keep finding more.

http://alexanderpalace.org/leftbehind

[Belochka]

Nagorny had to have committed some terrible offense if he was taken out and shot.

Not necessarily, an innocent person easily lost their life just by one's past association, or something as simple as a glance which annoyed the observer, the wrong word spoken in fear or simply by the whim of their bolshevik executioner.

The inviolability of life was lost on the bolsheviks.

Margarita

[Terence]

I've understood that Nagorny and the adult Sednev were probably removed right before the murder of the IF so as to eliminate the possibility of any interference/resistance from them.  That left only the targets (the IF), an old man and the female servants (and the child Sednev till he was removed at the last minute).  That makes sense to me, I doubt we'll ever know for sure as none of those responsible left anything that addresses the reasons.
Which leads me to wonder if Sophie B. was correct in stating Tchemodouroff was still there when they were removed.  I've tried searching for the answer when he was taken away, but so far no luck.  Perhaps someone here knows.

Terry

Edit: Found the answer, Chemodurov (darn those variant spellings!) was removed May 24, Nagorny and Sednev May 27.  Sophie's recollections were not accurate, which is understandable as she was not in the house and writing much later.  Also I'd forgotten Chemodurov was elderly, so he was really irrelevant as to whether they were removing the able-bodied males.

[Sarushka]

Nagorny had to have committed some terrible offense if he was taken out and shot.

Not necessarily, an innocent person easily lost their life just by one's past association

I heartily agree with this much of Belochka's statement. Think of Hendrikova and Schneider. No dramatic defense of the imperial family prompted the execution of those two women. That was a clear case of guilt by association.

[Annie]

Edit: Found the answer, Chemodurov (darn those variant spellings!) was removed May 24, Nagorny and Sednev May 27.  Sophie's recollections were not accurate, which is understandable as she was not in the house and writing much later.  Also I'd forgotten Chemodurov was elderly, so he was really irrelevant as to whether they were removing the able-bodied males.

He was in the infirmary that long?? Isn't that the same date they gave for the other guy?

Sophie's 'recollections' came from having spoken to the removed person(removed due to illness, not any perceived threat) when they met up again  after the family was gone. He first told his stories to Gilliard, who along with Gibbes told the chain story, and later to Sophie who did not say exactly what happened other than rude treatment. Also, even if the old man didn't physically witness what happened in the house, word does get around town and people do talk. I don't know why everyone is so darn desperate to discount this story! Sophie talked to a person who was there. Why is that not better than other theories? We have 3 people who knew the family and spoke to the man who had lived in the Ipatiev house vs. the theories of people on a message board. Talk about years later!

 Whose idea was it they took them out so they wouldn't resist? Isn't that just another theory? No one could have resisted from the basement anyway.

On the subject of Sophie 'getting things wrong' I also noticed she gave an account of having met up with Volkov again, and her account of his escape is exactly as told in his memoirs. It's funny how people will try to discount someone when it suits them yet use them for a source when that suits them the other way. (I also noticed she made NO references to anything strange happening on the Rus)


I also want to add that I'm not doubting the Bolsheviks would kill someone for no reason, of course that happened a lot. There are also many sad accounts of such incidents by Volkov and Sophie in their memoirs. But as far as the story of Nagorny and Alexei goes, there have been so many comments coming from those who were in the area at the time that something did happen involving Nargorny being upset at Alexei's treatment that there must be something to it. Where there's smoke there's fire, and this isn't just one puff but many.

[Terence]

He was in the infirmary that long?? Isn't that the same date they gave for the other guy?

I wondered about that too.  Found this today (from The Fate of the Romanovs) "During their Siberian exile Chemodurov became increasingly senile, and was finally removed from the Ipatiev House to a local hospital just three weeks after the Romanovs arrived in Ekaterinburg."  Who do you mean by the other guy?  The date I found of May 24 was from The Fall of the Romanovs, p. 331.

Sophie's 'recollections' came from having spoken to the removed person(removed due to illness, not any perceived threat) when they met up again  after the family was gone. He first told his stories to Gilliard, who along with Gibbes told the chain story, and later to Sophie who did not say exactly what happened other than rude treatment. Also, even if the old man didn't physically witness what happened in the house, word does get around town and people do talk. I don't know why everyone is so darn desperate to discount this story! Sophie talked to a person who was there. Why is that not better than other theories? We have 3 people who knew the family and spoke to the man who had lived in the Ipatiev house vs. the theories of people on a message board. Talk about years later!

I'm not desparate to discount the story, I could really care less actually, but it just does not seem credible to me.  Sophie spoke to one person who had been in the house, Chermodurov and he spoke of "rude behavior" nothing about a gold chain.  Gilliard and Gibbes weren't in the house and never said Chermodurov told them that particular story.  Prince Lvov told the story and may be the source which really makes it suspect IMO.

Who were in the house were Nicholas and Alexandra and we do know they never mentioned such a story.  In fact Alexandra stated she had no idea why Nagorny was removed.  That for me is very telling, I think she would have known of such an incident.  It's not just that she didn't detail the incident, she makes clear there was no overt reason for the removal to her knowledge.

That leaves 3 people in the house, Nicholas, Alexandra and Chermodurov who do not mention the story.  Lvov, not in the house, falsely claims Nagorny told him the story.  Gilliard and Gibbes, not in the house, never say where they heard the story.  Not very convincing to me.

Whose idea was it they took them out so they wouldn't resist? Isn't that just another theory? No one could have resisted from the basement anyway.

No idea where I read that, it just seemed to make sense so it stuck w/ me.  It is just a theory.  I don't think when Nagorny and Sednev were removed that they had the slayings all planned out to take place in detail.  Could have been just the fact they were whittling down the crowd w/ the IF as they had done all along.  The fact that they took the two able-bodied men and neither of the female servants just makes the theory plausible.  More plausible than the idea that the "gold chain incident" happened and neither Alexei or Dr. Botkin bothered to tell Nicholas or Alexandra!

On the subject of Sophie 'getting things wrong' I also noticed she gave an account of having met up with Volkov again, and her account of his escape is exactly as told in his memoirs. It's funny how people will try to discount someone when it suits them yet use them for a source when that suits them the other way. (I also noticed she made NO references to anything strange happening on the Rus)

I was fascinated reading Sophie's memoirs, for anyone interested in the Romanovs I think they are must reading, along w/ the other servant's stories.  She seems to be pretty accurate w/ a good memory.  I've never tried to discount her, just found a reference that she was mistaken about the valet still being there when Nagorny was removed.

I also want to add that I'm not doubting the Bolsheviks would kill someone for no reason, of course that happened a lot. There are also many sad accounts of such incidents by Volkov and Sophie in their memoirs. But as far as the story of Nagorny and Alexei goes, there have been so many comments coming from those who were in the area at the time that something did happen involving Nargorny being upset at Alexei's treatment that there must be something to it. Where there's smoke there's fire, and this isn't just one puff but many.

It's pretty well established Nagorny was the most defensive of the IF and esp. Alexei.  That in itself could be enough reason for his removal and doesn't mean the gold chain story actually happened as Lvov told it.  There may be a kernel of truth in the story somehow, but I doubt anyone will ever know unless new evidence turns up.

Apologies for babbling on so long.  I do love this site.  Thanks to all of you who contribute to the serious discussion of history here.  And kudos to you Annie on your AA site, well done.

Terry

[Sarushka]

He was in the infirmary that long?? Isn't that the same date they gave for the other guy?

You lost me there -- what infirmary? What "other guy"?

The elderly Chemodurov was released from his duty by Nicholas II himself on May 24th; he was not removed forcibly by the Bolsheviks.

Sophie's 'recollections' came from having spoken to the removed person(removed due to illness, not any perceived threat) when they met up again  after the family was gone. He first told his stories to Gilliard, who along with Gibbes told the chain story, and later to Sophie who did not say exactly what happened other than rude treatment. Also, even if the old man didn't physically witness what happened in the house, word does get around town and people do talk. I don't know why everyone is so darn desperate to discount this story!

Yes, people talk, but remember that Nagorny did not speak to Gilliard or Gibbs upon his removal, and spent only one night in the Yekaterinburg prison before being shot. There wasn't a whole lot of opportunity for his story to get out.

Sophie talked to a person who was there. Why is that not better than other theories? We have 3 people who knew the family and spoke to the man who had lived in the Ipatiev house vs. the theories of people on a message board.

Yes, Sophie Buxhoeveden talked to "a person who was there" but you're ignoring the fact that Chemodurov was not there at the time Nagorny was removed from the Ipatiev house, and in fact had not been there for the last 2-3 days. "Knowing the family" does not make Buxhoeveden, Gilliard, or Gibbes a reliable source for events that happened in their absence.

I don't know why everyone is so darn desperate to discount this story

I think you exaggerate. I'm not at all desperate to discount this story. I'm saying there's reason to be cautious about the story's source.

Whose idea was it they took them out so they wouldn't resist? Isn't that just another theory?

Yes, it's a theory that first appeared in FOTR.

Theorizing is no crime. With the total absence of eyewitnesses, what else can we do but theorize?

But as far as the story of Nagorny and Alexei goes, there have been so many comments coming from those who were in the area at the time that something did happen involving Nargorny being upset at Alexei's treatment that there must be something to it. Where there's smoke there's fire, and this isn't just one puff but many.

What other sources besides Prince George Lvov do you have? To my knowledge, he's the sole source of the gold chain rumor (as well as a variant involving Nagorny insisting Aleksei be allowed to keep two pairs of boots) which was then perpetuated by Gilliard and Gibbs. I see no smoke, nor fire -- just one man shooting off his mouth.

[Forum Admin]

There is franky NO credible first hand evidence to support  this story. We must discount it entirely unless real evidence comes up.  Remember, much was fabricated to incite feelings against the bolshevik regime during the civil war by the emigre community.  I have no doubt that this tale was such a story, designed to inflame anti-bolshevik feelings among the emigres.

[Annie]

The elderly Chemodurov was released from his duty by Nicholas II himself on May 24th; he was not removed forcibly by the Bolsheviks.

He reported to the refugees he had been taken to the infirmary due to his ill health.

Yes, Sophie Buxhoeveden talked to "a person who was there" but you're ignoring the fact that Chemodurov was not there at the time Nagorny was removed from the Ipatiev house, and in fact had not been there for the last 2-3 days. "Knowing the family" does not make Buxhoeveden, Gilliard, or Gibbes a reliable source for events that happened in their absence.

What is the source of the date he was taken out of the house?

Yes, it's a theory that first appeared in FOTR.

Theorizing is no crime. With the total absence of eyewitnesses, what else can we do but theorize?

It's not wrong for us to theorize, however, I don't think it's right for anyone to pass off theories as truth in 'nonfiction' books.

What other sources besides Prince George Lvov do you have? To my knowledge, he's the sole source of the gold chain rumor (as well as a variant involving Nagorny insisting Aleksei be allowed to keep two pairs of boots) which was then perpetuated by Gilliard and Gibbs. I see no smoke, nor fire -- just one man shooting off his mouth.

It was Giliard and Gibbes as told to them by the valet who had been in the house. I know nothing of Lvov, Sophie mentions him in her memoirs but makes no mention of him being connected to the chain story. I guess in the end it's all in who you choose to believe. You can read Chapter XI of "Left Behind", and see if you believe her or not. If you're going to put doubt on these peoples' stories, then how can we be sure of anything else they've said, or anything that happened at all?

[LisaDavidson]

What you are criticizing here, Annie is precisely the job of a historian. It is our job to theorize and to make the facts as understandable as possible to our readers. How on earth are we to do this without some interpretation? It is rather easy to discern a theory from a fact while reading history.

For example, it was Robert Massie's theory that Alexei's illness caused Nicholas and Alexandra to lose focus on their job of governing. Now, this is certainly not a fact, nor could anyone reading "Nicholas and Alexandra" possibly think this. And, by the way, some of us disagree with Massie's theories. It's not a matter of him being wrong (or right).

If everyone just reported the facts with no analysis, there would be some extremely dry history books. So, in summary, theories are not "passed off" as fact - it's rather simple to figure out an interpretation versus a fact.

[Sarushka]

What is the source of the date he was taken out of the house?

Alexandra's diary.

It's not wrong for us to theorize, however, I don't think it's right for anyone to pass off theories as truth in 'nonfiction' books.

Then you should have no quarrel with this theory, which is in no way presented as fact.

From page 157 of FOTR: "The removal of Nagorny and Sednev has always remained something of a mystery."

Page 159: "In all likelihood, Nagorny and Sednev were removed from the Ipatiev House precisely because they represented a threat to the power of the Special Detatchment."

It was Giliard and Gibbes as told to them by the valet who had been in the house. I know nothing of Lvov, Sophie mentions him in her memoirs but makes no mention of him being connected to the chain story. I guess in the end it's all in who you choose to believe. You can read Chapter XI of "Left Behind", and see if you believe her or not.

I don't disbelieve Buxhoeveden -- I think she had bad information and was unaware of the story's source. She heard it from Gilliard and Gibbs, both of whom she must have been well acquainted with and thus probably thought there was no need to investigate. Besides, Buxhoeveden wasn't a historian for goodness sake -- she was writing a memoir of her own experience. It wasn't her job to pin down the original source of everything she heard and chose to believe.

If you're going to put doubt on these peoples' stories, then how can we be sure of anything else they've said, or anything that happened at all?

There are only so many ways to say this, but the only person I'm doubting in this chain is Lvov, a man known to have told blatantly and verifiably false tales about the Romanovs in Yekaterinburg. The simple fact of the matter is that Gilliard and Gibbs fell for Lvov's story and then spread it. Can you blame them? It's an appealing and dramatic story, and it casts their murdered colleague (for lack of a better term) in a heroic light. In turn, Buxhoeveden didn't knowingly lie, she repeated a story she herself believed. That doesn't condemn Buxhoeveden, Gilliard, or Gibbs as unreliable sources overall -- it only makes them human.


You've made it sound like anyone reading these memoirs critically and cross-checking sources is committing some dastardly deed upon the authors' honor. That's ridiculous. It's just plain foolish to accept everything in print at face value. Despite being first-hand witnesses to much of the Romanov saga, these people are by no means infallible. Think of Lili Dehn mixing up the grand duchesses -- she wrote that she and Maria watched from the windows as the empress spoke to the AP guards on the eve of the revolution, when in fact Maria was outside with the empress. Being closely connected with the Romanovs does not make a memoirist immune to bias, glitches of memory, or bad judgement. A savvy reader will take all of that into account, and it's no crime.

[Forum Admin]

Last Act of a Tragedy has the Ipatiev House On-duty Guard's Diary, the daily record of events.

May 27 Alexandra reports Nagorny and Sednev were "taken away"

May 28, apparently along with ten other people Nagorny and Sednev turned over: Guard's report diary: "Turned over 12 persons found in the House of Special Purpose". - This means that Nagorny was not IN prison the 27, but rather under house arrest until the 28.

June 1: the cook Kharitonov reports something on top of the wardrobe in the room that Nagorny and Sednev used to share.  The guard on duty "When I got there it turned out that eight armed bombs were on top of the wardrobe Kharitonov had mentioned ... The bombs were disarmed in the guard room. ...  I informed Comrade Avdeyev, commandant of the House about it and he in turn informed Comrade Belobobrovdov, chairman of the regional soviet."  Now we know why they were shot.


Almost certainly Lvov never spoke to Nagorny "in prison" according to the time lines. The guard diary reports the most mundane details, such as Nicholas asking the windows be opened for air, or Botkin needing something out of a suitcase in storage...It is very important to me that no such mention of an incident involving a soldier and a gold cross is reported.

[Annie]

What you are criticizing here, Annie is precisely the job of a historian. It is our job to theorize and to make the facts as understandable as possible to our readers. How on earth are we to do this without some interpretation? It is rather easy to discern a theory from a fact while reading history.

Yes, it is, and that is why we are here, posting and quoting things from books and memoirs and lists, trying to draw conclusions based on what we have years later. As I said, that is fine for us here on the message board, but none of it should be stated as fact in a nonfiction book if it's only speculation presented as fact (this goes for all books) It's fine for authors to give you info and offer possible theories as long as they are clearly stated to be that and not presented as some new and different info that shatters everything we've known in the past when really it's just another idea.