did the children have the right to leave russia after the revolution?

[Kalafrana]

Rodney

I think you sum Nicholas up pretty well.

Interestingly, he did have an English tutor as a boy.

Ann

[Petr]

Generally true, but another way to think of it is that he was playing by the rules , unrealistic and idealised ones at that,   while his enemies, his opposition weren't. He seems to have incorporated a lot of the 19th century English public school fair play, good sport, ethic of its cricket and rugby fields, Mr Chips and all that

I commend all of you to read Gertrude Himmelfarb's Victorian Minds (1968) OCLC 400777. As I keep complaining our views of the past and its historical figures tend to be  prejudiced by modern concepts and preconceptions and, of course, the benefit of hindsight. Hence my reluctance to judge NII too harshly. There are many historical examples of passivity in the face of danger (as I have mentioned previously well to do Jews in Germany up to even Kristall Nacht for example). It's not so easy to see the forrest for the trees and, after all, as you all know, despite their grand appropriation of the title, the Bolsheviks were in the distinct minority. Had the Mensheviks succeeded (much less the Kadets) it is doubtful that the IF would have been slaughtered.  Thus, in 1917 I doubt that NII, even had he thought that the autocracy was doomed, could have contemplated what would happen. I frankly think that early in 1917 NII (as well as much of the aristocracy) thought Lenin and Trotsky, et al., were simply trouble making rabble rousers (if he thought of them at all).   He was more likely much more focused on Rodzianko, Guchkov, Miliutin, Kerensky, etc., who, in his mind, may have threatened the monarchy as an institution but probably posed less of a personal physical threat to him and his family. 

Petr     

[Alixz]

I had wondered if the men sent to get the abdication instrument signed knew about Alexei's illness and the severity of it.  Would they have been totally surprised when Nicholas signed away Alexei's rights in favor of Michael and wonder what was going on?  Would any of them have known that it was probably not illegal for Nicholas to sign for Alexei?

[Rodney_G.]

I had wondered if the men sent to get the abdication instrument signed knew about Alexei's illness and the severity of it.  Would they have been totally surprised when Nicholas signed away Alexei's rights in favor of Michael and wonder what was going on?  Would any of them have known that it was probably not illegal for Nicholas to sign for Alexei?

Yes, about the emissaries sent to Pskov by the Duma, Shulgin and Guchlov; did they go there to obtain an abdication to which Nicholas had already committed, a done deal in other words? Or did they go to TRY to persuade the Emperor Nicholas to abdicate? There's a difference.  Put another way, did they have Duma, Prov. Gov. authority to negotiate the best deal possible?
 

[Kalafrana]

Of course, in March 1917 Lenin was in exile in Switzerland, and, as far as the Russian Governmnet was concerned, pretty well neutralised.

Ann

[LisaDavidson]

I believe the Duma representatives went there to persuade the Emperor to abdicate. He surprised them by having made the decision already, having consulted with his generals. It is interesting that he did not consult his Empress, because everyone thought she was calling the shots, his family, likely because he was in conflict with most of them, or his government - neither his ministers nor his Duma - only the generals in his army. He made his decision based upon what he thought would be the best course to win the war and nothing else.

The idea of negotiating a good deal to leave office was entirely foreign to the Emperor. The idea of personal sacrifice and service to his country were his considerations. I think he realized he was finished as a politician and thought he could retire with his family to live a private life. Naive? certainly, but he was who he was.

[JamesAPrattIII]

It should be pointed out at the time of the Feb/March revolution there plots in the works to oust Nicholas in a coup. He also had to worry after Rasputins killing Alexandra or himself might be next so abdiction sounds like a good idea. I think I may have read somewhere General Ruzsky the NorthWesthern Front Commander was planning on launching a military coup to get rid of Nicholas. post abdication a palace official advised Nicholas and Alexandra to get out of Russia ASAP and he would follow with the children as soon as they were well enough to travel. however, they refused to leave their sick children and by the time they were well their "friends" wouldn't give them asylum. After that they probably all felt until April 1918 when Vassily Yakolev arrived at Toblosk that they were either going to go off into exile or they would be rescued. There were alot of rescue plans out there but they didn't get anywhere in part because the man Alexandra trusted the most, Boris Solovyou was a Bolo and german agent. Finally, even in Ekaterinburg Nicholas and Alexandra probably thought they were going to be taken to moscow for a trial and executed possibly their son would be killed but their daughters would be ransomed or exchanged like madame Royal (LXVI and M-A's daughter). It also should be pointed out they didn't get much news when they were in Toblosk and their last month at Ekaterinburg they got nothing excecpt what they could get out of the guards ect. It seems like just about all the luck Nicholas had throughout his life was bad.

[Petr]

post abdication a palace official advised Nicholas and Alexandra to get out of Russia ASAP and he would follow with the children as soon as they were well enough to travel. however, they refused to leave their sick children and by the time they were well their "friends" wouldn't give them asylum. .

As is the case often in life, luck and timing is everything. Had the children not come down with measles the IF might have been able to travel to the Crimea (which NII subsequently requested of Kerensky). Had travel occurred soon after his arrival in Tsarskoe Selo (or even had he insisted that AF and the children travel ahead of him) all or some of the IF could possibly have been saved (much like his Mother and GD NN, Felix, etc.). While travel south that winter was difficult it was not impossible (my Grandfather, who was an officer serving in the Army at that time, made several trips back and forth to Petrograd from the south while on leave even at the height of revolutionary activities). I fault Kerensky because he did not want to take responsibility for the decision to let the IF leave. He could have assigned a convoy of soldiers to accompany the family if the reason for not permitting them to leave was a fear for their safety.  I think he was more concerned about protecting his political flank from those on the left who were agitating to have NII tried. Obviously, with time as matters deteriorated further it became increasingly difficult to authorize such a departure. 

In any event, I don't believe NII would have wanted to leave Russia so long as it was at war. I think his sense of duty and loyalty would have made him think it would be a form of desertion.  Crimea was another matter.

Petr   

[Rodney_G.]

Petr., your post reminds me that there's something odd about the Romanovs being held in captivity beyond, say, June, 1917. At first, right after the March revolution ,a revolutionary Government would have a natural interest in holding Nicholas and Alexandra, namely to investigate them and N's regime for whatever they thought may have been the regime's crimes. But that special investigating commission didn't find anything criminal or treasonous for which to try either N or A. And they looked very hard and thoroughly, (as Anna Vyrubova could attest). So, after that point, why keep the Romanovs in custody? The Provisional Gov't, even by its own criteria, could hardly justify keeping the Romanovs captive after its commission essentially exonerated them.
I'm not naive about the political pressure exerted on Kerensky by the SP Soviet  but formally there would have been nothing to bar the release of the Romanovs, or indeed, to actively escort them to the Crimea or elsewhere. Like you, I  strongly blame Kerensky for not taking the tougher, less popular, but morally right course.

[TimM]

I  strongly blame Kerensky for not taking the tougher, less popular, but morally right course

Well, his hold on power was not that secure, so he had to be careful.

[TimM]

You can also blame the British Government for caving in to Left wing pressure and withdrawing their offer of asylum.  They more or less threw the IF to the wolves.

[mcdnab]

Couple of repeat points about the last two posts:

1) The reason they remained under arrest despite the provisional government finding nothing to charge them with was because the Provisional Govt was exceptionally weak and was forced to come to terms with the Bolsheviks who were explicit in their criticism of the "freedom" being allowed the Imperial family and those members who had not been arrested primarily the Empress Dowager and GD Mikhail.
2) As has been stated numerous times the British offer of asylum was made by the British Govt - it attracted criticism and was withdrawn at the urging of the King via his Private Secretary - in fact its withdrawal came after Kerensky had already promised the Soviet that N & A would not be allowed to leave Russia and in fact the Petrograd gov thanked the British for withdrawing the offer. I would also point out that unlike Nicholas George V was a Parliamentary Monarch and therefore had to at least look like he listened and considered the views of a) his elected government and b) his people whatever their political views.

Whatever you think of Nicholas he had to a certain extent made his own bed and it is a bit rich to expect his cousins (whose style of constitutional monarchy he had disparaged) to bail him out at the risk of their own thrones.
And cousin George V wasn't the only one who could have offered asylum or help - there was Denmark (maternal cousin) or Norway (double maternal cousin) for example both a damn site nearer and in one case sharing a land border with Russia.

I have always believed that for all his post revolution posturing had Kerensky acted he could have got most of the Romanov's to safety - even if it had meant arresting some of them and forcing them across the border....particularly as his gov began to collapse.

[Alixz]

Kerensky was never "in control" as much as he would have liked to be. When his own government began to collapse, he was more concerned about his own skin than that of the Romanovs.

I do agree about Denmark and Norway. I have also wondered about Roumania which shared a border and Spain who offered but did not have close land ties but whose queen was a cousin of Alexandra's.

Roumania's queen was a cousin of Nicholas II and a cousin of Alexandra.  No help from there either.

[Petr]

While blood may be thicker than water, power and its retention is thicker than all.



Petr

[Alixz]

I actually never thought too much about Roumania before this thread. Everyone who writes about the Kerensky period concentrates on the UK and poor King George V.

However, Queen Missy was certainly out spoken enough and determined when she wanted something, I would have thought that she would have had a little more concern about her double cousins.

Does she mention anything about this in her memoirs? Or does she as usual concentrate solely on herself?