The Lost Prince

[robors]

I don't like the execution in that film either, the Ipatiev House even has a fish tank or something like that, I think.

[koloagirl]

Aloha all!

I saw "The Lost Prince" when it was out on PBS - but I rented it the other day and watched it again - I'm afraid I have all the same problems with it now that I did then!

Alexandra being portrayed as so over-the-top demanding and rude (what type of an accent was she attemping?) - and Nicky a worm at her feet - I hated that the relationship between these two was stereotyped into this with none of the tenderness and love that they had for one another.

OTMAA - I did like the portrayal of OTMA - the girls spoke Russian and English and while they weren't look-alikes, gave good ideas of which girl was which - Alexei was practically invisible in this series, so no comment there.

The Ipatiev House - well, same thing - farmhouse, bunk beds - Alexandra having Nicky remove her shoes and then "shushing" the girls for talking - no tenderness, love shown between anyone but the girls - who of course had long hair.

I really enjoyed the non-Romanov moments of the series - thought it was very well done, if not exactly historically correct (it seems that Prince John wasn't as "isolated" as it was shown- and Queen Mary not quite the ice Queen shown either) - loved the scenes between Prince George and Prince John - both Prince Johns!

Just another sad, stereotypical portrayal of Nicholas and Alexandra - with a little nice OTMA thrown in!

[scelli@swbell.net]

Yup, the film portrayed Alix as a real snot-nose...there's another word I could use here to describe her in the film, but this is a family board! And poor 'ol Nicky was about as wimpy as they come, huh? I did come away from the movie with a pretty intense dislike of the King (he was a bit of a punk)  and (Ice) Queen, though.

[Grace]

Another thread on "The Lost Prince" when it's been a matter of weeks since the last one was used?

Can it be said once and for all this program was made as a docu/drama, meaning it doesn't purport to be exactly historically accurate?  This is a disappointment, of course, for those of us who like the truth but it's not going to change it now.  I just don't understand why people keep going on about the portrayal of the Romanovs in it who didn't feature prominently in the life of Prince John anyway.

[scelli@swbell.net]

Another thread on "The Lost Prince" when it's been a matter of weeks since the last one was used?

Can it be said once and for all this program was made as a docu/drama, meaning it doesn't purport to be exactly historically accurate?  This is a disappointment, of course, for those of us who like the truth but it's not going to change it now.  I just don't understand why people keep going on about the portrayal of the Romanovs in it who didn't feature prominently in the life of Prince John anyway.

Sorry, but I disagree. Whether the Romanov family in reality actually played such a prominent role in the life of Prince John is not the point. The fact is that in the movie as presented, they did indeed play a very pivotal role. One of the most dramatic scenes in the entire film is when the King is notified of their demise in Russia, and his actions towards the Romanov family led to other consequences that still reverberate today.

As far as this being another thread on the subject: I stated clearly that I looked for a place to post my comments and the thread I did find hadn't had a response in close to a year. Perhaps there were other threads active which I didn't see, but it was an honest mistake on my part.

[Thomas_Hesse]

Yes, I am aware that Alexandra and Nicholas were domineering and weak, respectively. Obviously this portrayal was more true to life than if the opposite was shown, but really, was Alexandra really so unhinged? You can be the more dominant spouse without giving the impression that you're nuts. All she said was that she needed different shoes and wouldn't say why. I still don't get it. Really, the ground was quite compact. And then going on and on about how small the house was and how George and Mary lived in such a teeny tiny place. I've never read anything about Alexandra that suggested she was so rude. Maybe if she had been portrayed as quieter and more shy (even though this was her family and she knew them well) that would have made more sense. I think she was only shown this way so that the message that Nicholas was a weak ruler would get across to the viewer.

Unhinged and rude? The film is a mere impudence as far as Alexandra Feodorovna is concerned! How can they dare to make a fool out of her person? Loving and prefering an intimate atmosphere she would never have said such things - especially as she was an extremely modest person. Also: her beloved home was Wolfsgarten - a small hunting lodge!
How I disdain such an ignorance - just in order to make a film more "interesting" and scandalous....

[GoldenPen]

Pretty much everyone here already express there opinion on the mis - character of Nicholas and especially Alexandra, but with that said... I still can't believe how inaccurate the characters were!!

The movie "The Lost Prince" even with the Nicholas and Alexandra scene, is still one of my favorites... I still cried at the end!

[carrington]

This is an old topic, the inaccuracies, etc, in "The Lost Prince"... but having seen this movie a couple of times, I think I may have some insight. First of all, remember that the movie is portrayed from, largely, the perspective of the British royal family.  When King George receives news from Russia it was probably sketchy, at best. Being told, for example, via reports from the F.O. that the family was being removed to remote regions of Siberia, for example, precludes an assumption, PERHAPS, they are in an isolated farm house.  Further, when told that verified reports that the family are awakened, and shot in a basement... The imagery in the film may well be the royal Family's perception/imagining of their deaths. Remember, again, we are some years away from the benefit of the Sokolov report... Which even then was still filled with a lot of assumption and guess work. Earlier reports that the family are living under a harsh regime and some obvious deprivation, again it would be easy to assume they may be under a strict prison regime, "locked together in a room".  I do not think it was laziness on the part of the film-makers to not try and make it realistic... I think that they only need to portray the perceptions the Royal family would be experiencing. The Romanovs are cut off, and there is little direct news to digest.
  Further, the presence of the Romanovs in the film, serve, I think, as a further, and clear-cut reflection, of the "gilded age" of monarchy, as the final curtain of war and revolution sweep the entire old establishment away.  Things will never be the same, whether the king in Great Britain retains his throne, or not. The movie clearly portrays the Old Queen Alexandra, and the rest with tear filled eyes.. Realizing the loss of their tether to pre-1914 world.  Cousins Georgie, Nicky, and Willie will no longer rule that world.
    I view the execution  in this movie,in a similar, but much darker vein, as John's amusing  idea that his Russian refugee cousins, might make a home with him. Filling the void of his lonely existence with the Tsarina, beating a rug, chasing a chicken, those lovely girls in the garden, and tea with the ex- Kaiser.  Try re-watching the movie sometime from that standpoint.  The flash scenes of the Romanovs in captivity, only come after George and Mary receive reports , obviously vague and thin, passed through the convoluted channels of war-time diplomatic corps and the Foreign Office.   With that in mind those GLARING ERRORS are somewhat less chafing. 

[LisaDavidson]

This is an old topic, the inaccuracies, etc, in "The Lost Prince"... but having seen this movie a couple of times, I think I may have some insight. First of all, remember that the movie is portrayed from, largely, the perspective of the British royal family.  When King George receives news from Russia it was probably sketchy, at best. Being told, for example, via reports from the F.O. that the family was being removed to remote regions of Siberia, for example, precludes an assumption, PERHAPS, they are in an isolated farm house.  Further, when told that verified reports that the family are awakenened, and shot in a basement... The imagery in the film may well be the royal Family's perception/imagining of their deaths. Remember, again, we are some years away from the benefit of the Sokolov report... Which even then was still filled with alot of assumption and guess work. Earlier reports that the family are living under a harsh regime and some obvious deprivation, again it would be easy to assume they may be under a strict prison regime, "locked together in a room".  I do not think it was laziness on the part of the film-makers to not try and make it realistic... I think that they only need to portray the perceptions the Royal family would be experiencing. The Romanovs are cut off, and there is little direct news to digest.
  Further, the presence of the Romanovs in the film, serve, I think, as a further, and clear-cut reflection, of the "gilded age" of monarchy, as the final curtain of war and revolution sweep the entire old establishment away.  Things will never be the same, whether the king in Great Britain retains his throne, or not. The movie clearly portrays the Old Queen Alexandra, and the rest with tear filled eyes.. Realizing the loss of their tether to pre-1914 world.  Cousins Georgie, Nicky, and Willie will no longer rule that world.
    I view the execution  in this movie,in a similar, but much darker vein, as John's amusing  idea that his Russian refugee cousins, might make a home with him. Filling the void of his lonley existence with the Tsarina, beating a rug, chasing a chicken, those lovely girls in the garden, and tea with the ex- Kaiser.  Try re-watching the movie sometime from that standpoint.  The flash scenes of the Romanovs in captivity, only come after George and Mary receive reports , obviously vague and thin, passed through the conviluted channels of war-time diplomatic corps and the Foreign Office.   With that in mind those GLARING ERRORS are somewhat less chafing. 

I appreciate your point of view, but don't share it. There are members of this Forum for whom the Imperial Family are saints, but for those of us interested in history, the errors are certainly glaring and get in the way of telling the story of the young prince. The more you know, sometimes, the less "fun" it is, because you tend to notice the mistakes without even trying.

[mcdnab]

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!

[CorisCapnSkip]

OTMAA - I did like the portrayal of OTMA - the girls spoke Russian and English and while they weren't look-alikes, gave good ideas of which girl was which - Alexei was practically invisible in this series, so no comment there.

I've seen the movie only once, but it seemed Alexei appeared several years older than John.  They were actually only a year apart in age (born and died--both passed away at 13--) so if John interacted with any of the Romanovs it should have been Alexei.  I can't find what year the visit took place but they must have been quite young at the time.

As for asylum, it seems a shame that even if the Romanovs could not come to live in England they couldn't have gone somewhere else--wasn't that when the sun never set on the British empire?  It seems, though, that England had its own troubles with the war and there was some difficulty in getting them out of Russia once the real trouble started.

[Alixz]

Since George and Mary are King and Queen, the earliest it could have been is 1911 or 1912. 

Alexei was born in 1904 and which point Olga was 9.  I have to go back and review the movie.  I only saw it once but I have since bought it and not watched it again.

If this visit was for Cowes in 1910 then Edward would have been King and Alexei would have been 6 and Olga 15.  I think that the ages of all of the Imperial children were in question in this movie.  I remember the girls being shown as fairly young, but Olga would have been turning 15, Tatiana 13, Marie 11 and Anastasia 9.

I definitely have to go back and take another look at the whole DVD,

[Silja]

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.

True, but the problem with Alexandra's portrayal is not that she is shown as aloof and haughty - Queen Mary does come across as such - but as ridiculously fussy. The scene with the shoes is totally unlike Alix. The same with the imagined scenes in Ekaterinburg, where Alix is again shown to be nothing but pickety. The real Alix found it indeed hard to adapt to the "prison regime" but she reacted to it with brave and dignified resignation, not with silly "scenes". Alexandra's ridiculous impression is further emphasized by the silly accent. Everybody should know English was her native language.
I would have hoped for a serious portrayal similar to that of Miranda Richardson's Queen Mary.

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,

Again, this is correct. But it only again emphasizes the British hypocrisy on the part of the establishment in that before they didn't show any scruples about fighting "for democracy" alongside the Russian autocracy.
George V feared for his own position and reputation, so his behaviour is understandable but still cowardly and dishonourable, especially as at the same time he was not man enough to accept the responsibility for his decision but was happy enough to let the world believe the withdrawal of the invitation had originated with the British Government.

[NAOTMAA Fan]

Since George and Mary are King and Queen, the earliest it could have been is 1911 or 1912. 

Alexei was born in 1904 and which point Olga was 9.  I have to go back and review the movie.  I only saw it once but I have since bought it and not watched it again.

If this visit was for Cowes in 1910 then Edward would have been King and Alexei would have been 6 and Olga 15.  I think that the ages of all of the Imperial children were in question in this movie.  I remember the girls being shown as fairly young, but Olga would have been turning 15, Tatiana 13, Marie 11 and Anastasia 9.

I definitely have to go back and take another look at the whole DVD,

I can't find what year the visit took place but they must have been quite young at the time.

Incorrect, the scene in which The Romanovs visit happens directly after Queen Alexandra's birthday. Edward VII is still King at that point in the film. The historical visit replicated in the film is the Imperial Family's visit to Cowes on the Isle of Wight in 1909. The visit took place in May or June, making Alexei 4, Anastasia 7 or 8, Maria 9 or 10, Tatiana 11 or 12, and Olga 13.

[Marie-Antoinette]

I'm just re-watching The Lost Prince and the inaccurate portrayals of the Romanovs are really grating on me!
For instance, how they are all speaking Russian amongst themselves, if I remember correctly, they spoke English to each other because it was the only language they had in common - they wrote all of their letters in English as well and I even remember reading that the younger Grand Duchesses disliked learning Russian because it was difficult, etc.
Also how Alexei is walking along hand in hand with Olga, I can't really imagine happening, plus how Anastasia appears to be about a decade older than Alexei.
And don't get me started on the portrayal of the Tsarina with her Russian accent, just by reading the discussion about her character in this thread alone, I think there is a general agreement that she would never have made such a scene as that with the inappropriate shoes etc.

As inaccurate as their portrayal was, (you'd have thought that researchers might have put some effort into the ages if not the smaller details) on the other hand, The Lost Prince opened my eyes to the personalities of George V and Queen Mary, their glacial sort of coldness and obsession with order.