Mr Charles Sydney Gibbes

[Janet_Ashton]

Does anyone know what became of the personal collection of C.S Gibbes??? I read that they used to be held at Oxford's Orthodox Chapel - including the chandelier once in Yekaterinburg, and one of Nicky's books, among other things+ Where could these collections be now? I know Mr Gibbes had an adopted son, and thought the items might now be in his ownership, or perhaps they have been removed from this country to Russia? Any ideas?

Elisa

Gibbes' adopted son George (who, incidentally, retained his strong Russian accent to the end of his life) kept at least part of the collections until 1989, when he sent them to form part of the Werner Collection at Luton Hoo. Luton Hoo no longer belongs to the Werner family, and I am uncertain what has ahppened to the collection. Some items used to be on display there; I had the privilege of looking through a lot of the photographs when Mr Gibbes still owned them. I'm afarid he's now dead, I think.
One poster here (David Newell) recently wrote that he is tying to ascertain what has happened to Luton Hoo.

Janet

[BobAtchison]

Elisa - that is very interesting!  How did you find that out?  Can you tell us more about your discovery?

Bob

[BobAtchison]

That is VERY interesting - sounds like someone should do some investigative journalism to find out what happened.  VERY mysterious!

Bob

[Bob Wisener]

After reading the "Fate of the Romanovs," I find Charles Syndney Gibbes to be quite an interesting character.  "...A quite homosexual, in his later life he harbored an obsessive interest in the tsesarevich, (typo-bad editors! and tried, unsuccessfully, to assume the name Father Alexei in his honor; instead, he became Father Nicholas." (King and Wilson, pg. 507).

Its funny how things don't change with time.  Though none of us are old enough to actually have known the Romanovs, I'm sure some people on this message board are just as obsessive as those who were with NAOTMAA.  Whether that could lead to a possible name change--who knows--crazier things have happened!

I wonder if this obsession and the brutal deaths of the imperial family haunted those close to them and if any of those still alive after the revolution ever sought some kind of professional therapy to deal with their grief.  It sounds like some of them needed it.

[Greg_King]

in the tsesarevich, (typo-bad editors! and tried, unsuccessfully, to assume the name Father Alexei in his honor; instead, he became Father Nicholas." (King and Wilson, pg. 507)..

Actually, Tsesarevich IS the correct title and spelling-Peter the Great changed it from Tsarevich in 1721 I think, at the same time he assumed the title of Emperor.

Greg King

[Liz]

Please forgive me if my two cents worth on Mr. Gibbes/Father Nicholas offends anyone -- but I feel it at least an anachronism to imply that this devoted servant of the IF and co-tutor to Alexei Nikolaevich was unbalanced in his feelings for the Heir rather than faithful to the boy's memory.  'Unhealthy obsession' as we are acquainted with it today is a very 90's concept and a very 90's nightmare.   It was merely touching that upon his conversion to Orthodoxy Gibbes in fact took the name 'Alexei', and felt no more than a twinge of regret at the loss of his baptismal name when he became a monk-priest (and a name-change always happens at the ordination of a monk-priest.)  CSG quite simply felt the affection of a teacher for a favorite pupil and deserves to be viewed as a child of his time rather than in contemporary terms.  Of course he truly loved Alexei, and he had a right to his feelings and not to be judged for them.

Was there in fact anything more to the assertion that Gibbes was necessarily a homosexual than the 'it may have been so' statements in the Frances Welch book?  If not, perhaps this red herring is as much an unfounded impression impression as the 'suicide attempt' of Alexis in 'Nicholas and Alexandra'.

[Belochka]

The title Tsar as we know today was originally derived from the Roman word Caesar(in AD 68) and adopted by Ivan IV (the first Russian Tsar) in 1546 and continued to be used right upto 1917.

Tsesar was incorporated by the old Slavonic language (the first literary language of the Slavs developed in the 9th century by the Bulgarian monks Kiril and his brother Methodius).

For the sake of simplicity Tsesar was later contracted to Tsar' by other monks who penned religious manuscripts.

Originally the appellation Tsesarevich was used specifically to identify the male heir apparent to the Imperial Crown. Similarily, this term was also contracted to Tsarevich.

The title Tsarevich is a general term used to identify the son of a Tsar (a word which was adopted into the English language directly from the French designation).

So while both Tsarevich and Tsesarevich have been used by historians, in my opinion it is really a matter of preference as whether the original titles are used or the now accepted modernizations.

Unfortunately few authors today choose to use the more formal original titles.

[Belochka]

Peter the Great was the first Tsar' to be granted the title of Imperator of All the Russias, which was provided by Senate decree on October 22, 1721.

It came about with the signing of the Peace Treaty in Nystad, Sweden, which not only enabled expansion of the Russian territory but also concluded the 21 year war against Sweden.

The new title of Imperator reflected Russia's new expansion to the Baltic Sea - which now permitted unfettered access along the Baltic coast.

IMHO the appellation of Imperator is more correct, despite the fact that the other term Tsar' is used more commonly.

[Nadya_Arapov]

'Unhealthy obsession' as we are acquainted with it today is a very 90's concept and a very 90's nightmare

With all due respect Liz "unhealthy obsession" was not merely a phenomenon of the '90s. Obsession, like every other human emotion,  has existed since the dawn of time.

[Pravoslavnaya]

If obsession has existed since the dawn of time, the Victorians, being the romantics they were, must have wallowed in benign, obsessive sentiments.  And consider that the Emperor, the Empress, and all the most loyal members of court, Mr. Gibbes among them, absolutely doted on the Imperial Children.

A friend of mine from church has remarked that the Tsesarevich was perhaps even 'too beautiful'.  'Not of this world', certainly....

[elisa_1872]

Has anyone a photograph of Gibbes' grave?

[Belochka]

I feel it at least an anachronism to imply that this devoted servant of the IF and co-tutor to Alexei Nikolaevich was unbalanced in his feelings for the Heir rather than faithful to the boy's memory.   CSG quite simply felt the affection of a teacher for a favorite pupil and deserves to be viewed as a child of his time rather than in contemporary terms.  Of course he truly loved Alexei, and he had a right to his feelings and not to be judged for them.

I agree with you Liz, CSG did not express obsessive attitudes towards his charge - Alexei. What we do learn about CSG is his expression of profound grief which took many years to manifest itself in a recognizable way - when he converted to the Orthodox faith and was ordained a priest in 1934. IMHO this drastic step was his way to honor not just Alexei, but the entire family, because of their own religiosity. Although maintaining a stiff upper-lip expression characteristic of his Englishness, he was significantly influenced by his attendances at the Ipatiev House and subsequent visit to the burial site to help identify remnants whilst assisting Sokolov. This slow personal spiritual journey took 16 years to be realized.

By removing keepsakes and significant objects such the chandalier from the Ipatiev House, Gibbes not only fortuitously preserved forever this eclectic collection, but these objects provided a tangible link to the Imperial Family and allowed a constant reminder for all who viewed them, of the family's ulimate fate.

By becoming a priest he IMHO believed he found a connection to the old Russia and through it a spiritual union to the Imperial Family.

Professor Elizabeth Kotaissoff (Welch p 107) believed that Gibbes' calling was indeed ... "following his faithfulness to the Imperial Family." which was based on emotion rather than the normal realization when a person does become a priest.

[Mike]

Let's clarify the terms tsarevich and tsesarevich:

In XIX-XX cc. there was no official title tsarevich . The word was used either as a vernacular designation of a tsar's son (whose official title was velikiy knyaz' = Grand Duke), or in historical context for naming such personages as tsarevich Alexey, tsarevich Dmitriy etc.

Tsesarevich on the other hand was an official title of the heir apparent, who wasn't necessarily the ruling monarch's son - he could instead be his younger brother. E.g., Konstantin was tsesarevich during the reign of Alexander I who had no legitimate children.

The heir didn't assume this title automatically. With Nicolas II ascention and until Alexey was born, Mikhail was the heir apparent - but without the title tsesarevich, which was a subject of much gossip and court talks.

[Forum Admin]

The heir didn't assume this title automatically. With Nicolas II ascention and until Alexey was born, Mikhail was the heir apparent - but without the title tsesarevich, which was a subject of much gossip and court talks.

Mike
Was this something granted by the Tsar? or was it more the difference between Heir "Apparant" and Heir "Presumptive"? Michael was the presumptive heir, but Nicholas could easily have a son (as happened)... so he was not the Heir Apparant....

[Mike]

Rob, by Russian Imperial law, the heir to the throne should have always been known to the public; his name was also a part of the church liturgy. Therefore the heir was always proclaimed immediately upon the ascention of a new emperor. It was up to the emperor whether to grant his heir the tsesarevich title.

In Mikhail's case, as you correctly noticed, the prospect of another heir was more than possible - at that time Nicolas wasn't even married yet, and his future first child could easily be male. In such a case Mikhail should have been "stripped" of his tsesarevich title. Probably the title was not granted in order to save him such eventual embarassment.