Mr Charles Sydney Gibbes

[Robert_Hall]

So true, Sarushka.  If Gibbes was homosexual there is no evidence that he ever acted on it.  Especially with any undersage boys.

[Michael HR]

His private life is his private life and nothing to do with anyone. It seems to have been a rumor rather than fact.

[Paul]

I don't doubt at all that he was gay, but I do think this is something that N & A would
never have tolerated in a tutor if they learned about it, or believed it. He must have been
fairly discreet in that period.

I think we continue to have the problem of thinking that today's openness about gays was something that existed during N & A time.  Clearly there were many practicing homosexuals (ie. GD Konstantine Konstantinovich (K.R.), G. D. Serge Alexandrovitch, and GD Ernest of Hesse come to mind).
But the idea that any of these men would openly acknowledge this is absurd. Most married and practiced their "secret" on the side.  I don't think any of their relatives would even speculate on their sex lives, even if they may have felt that they were more "artistic" than others.  I am sure Mr. Gibbes was not hired to "make a man" of the heir-- his father and the military staff took care of that and so even if he was blatantly "feminine" would not be a cause for worry. Think of the access Felix Yousupov had to the Imperial family.  I don't believe Alexandra would even think that anyone she might meet or know might be subject to such "perversions."  We have to try to understand the culture and wolrd of 1896-1917.

BobG

Very true. Homosexuality was so underground back then that the average person rarely thought about it at all. The taboo was so strong, in most places, that few would even speak of it in polite company. It's likely that a lot of people went thru their whole lives w/o hearing anything about the topic.

Another quirk of human nature probably came in to play back then- as now. People have a wonderful capacity to ignore things that they don't like. If a Gay man made himself useful or distinguished himself in some positive way, people would bend over backwards to block his true nature out of their conscious minds.
So long as the man in question never actually said anything, his peers would gratefully overlook his homosexuality. They'd think something like: "That pervert down the street is a pervert. However: Saburov The Great Doctor is... <chuckle> <shake their heads>... just Saburov."

It's no different now, really.

[LisaDavidson]

I don't doubt at all that he was gay, but I do think this is something that N & A would
never have tolerated in a tutor if they learned about it, or believed it. He must have been
fairly discreet in that period.

I think we continue to have the problem of thinking that today's openness about gays was something that existed during N & A time.  Clearly there were many practicing homosexuals (ie. GD Konstantine Konstantinovich (K.R.), G. D. Serge Alexandrovitch, and GD Ernest of Hesse come to mind).
But the idea that any of these men would openly acknowledge this is absurd. Most married and practiced their "secret" on the side.  I don't think any of their relatives would even speculate on their sex lives, even if they may have felt that they were more "artistic" than others.  I am sure Mr. Gibbes was not hired to "make a man" of the heir-- his father and the military staff took care of that and so even if he was blatantly "feminine" would not be a cause for worry. Think of the access Felix Yousupov had to the Imperial family.  I don't believe Alexandra would even think that anyone she might meet or know might be subject to such "perversions."  We have to try to understand the culture and wolrd of 1896-1917.

BobG

Very true. Homosexuality was so underground back then that the average person rarely thought about it at all. The taboo was so strong, in most places, that few would even speak of it in polite company. It's likely that a lot of people went thru their whole lives w/o hearing anything about the topic.

Another quirk of human nature probably came in to play back then- as now. People have a wonderful capacity to ignore things that they don't like. If a Gay man made himself useful or distinguished himself in some positive way, people would bend over backwards to block his true nature out of their conscious minds.
So long as the man in question never actually said anything, his peers would gratefully overlook his homosexuality. They'd think something like: "That pervert down the street is a pervert. However: Saburov The Great Doctor is... <chuckle> <shake their heads>... just Saburov."

It's no different now, really.

In same places it's no different now. But, among my friends and family it is much much different and has been for at least three generations.  So much so, my two daughters were absolutely shocked that a dear friend of ours could not legally marry the man he loves. And they were so happy when they could finally marry legally.

I always tell my mom that she raised us "wrong" (tongue in cheek) in that she and I both grew up knowing our Uncle Billy Haines and Uncle Jimmy Shields, who were dear friends of her mother (my grandmother).

Our daughters plan to continue to raise their children "wrong", too. Vive le difference!

[Robert_Hall]

I agree with Paul, in that homosexuality was different than being "gay".  Although there were many long term same sex relationships, they were never as open as now.  My partner & I are now getting legally married, after 38+ years together [write me to find out where we are registered!].
 To us, it is more of a political statement, as all the legal aspects have been taken care of long ago. But,  in the past, especially when marriage was the province of a state church and morals religiously mandated, it would have remained impossible.
 Whatever Gibbes was, he seems to have remained celebate. May have, or not, had his fantasies but there is no evidence he ever acted upon them.

 

[LisaDavidson]

I agree with Paul, in that homosexuality was different than being "gay".  Although there were many long term same sex relationships, they were never as open as now.  My partner & I are now getting legally married, after 38+ years together [write me to find out where we are registered!].
 To us, it is more of a political statement, as all the legal aspects have been taken care of long ago. But,  in the past, especially when marriage was the province of a state church and morals religiously mandated, it would have remained impossible.
 Whatever Gibbes was, he seems to have remained celebate. May have, or not, had his fantasies but there is no evidence he ever acted upon them.

 

Congratulations, Robert Hall, to you and your husband.

For whatever it's worth, I agree that there is a huge difference between being gay and being able to live a normal life with the person you love. In the 19th and early 20th century, there was really no such thing as being an openly gay couple.

I am inclined to believe what I stated before, that is, that Nicholas and Alexandra quite clearly had gay people among their friends and family, and likely would have professed no interest in anyone's discreet and private behavior, homosexual or not. These things were not openly discussed. However, many tend to apply their own (contemporary) values and norms to historical personages, which really muddies the waters. Nicholas, even though he was "conservative" was not "conservative" in the sense that present day evangelical Christians are "conservative" and often very judgemental about private behaviors. It would never have occurred to him to poke his nose into a tutor's private desires or interests.

Fact is, those who served the Imperial Family often could not marry and if they did, their families and loved ones suffered. Gibbes had little chance for a private life of any kind whilst attached to the IF.

[tyumen]

You are spot - on Lisa D. ! Congrats Robert H. !

[Robert_Hall]

Thank you Lisa & Tyumen.
 Although there have always been homosexuals/gay folk throughout history, very little is really hard and fast documentation. There are several histories of gay  life & culture, we seem to have disspeared from the Reformation to Oscar Wilde. In the case of Gibbes, I have heard/read several theories about his desire to go religious. One, of course, is his desire to memorialise the IF, another might have been to  suppress his sexuality. If the latter was the case,  choosing religion is the wrong place to go for that! But, it a choice that many before  and after him have made, with varying results

[matushka]

Hum, we could also suppose that Gibbes deeply converted himself, became orthodox believer with the desire to serve his new Church and the contry he had lean to love: I remember he was also proposed to make some mission work in Siberia and Russia. Not only the desire to memorialise the IF, but to go by their steps in faith. That kind of things also happen, you know, simple psychology can not always all explain.

[Robert_Hall]

Of course, Matushka. The two theories I posited are just that- theories.  At the end of the day, it was between Gibbes and his god.

[Sarushka]

Joanna kindly emailed the image to me, so here is the photo she found at the website linked in her last post:

[nena]

OMG, that one is priceless! I was right when I said there are many unpublished for us pictures of R-ovs.
I think this one was taken at same period.

Yes, it was indeed taken at Mogilev in 1916.

I think OTMAA learned English well (as beginers) near Charles Sydney Gibbes. 

[Sarushka]

I think this one was taken at same period.

Who is the man beside Gilliard?

[Rodney_G.]

 I wondered about that too. We have, left to right, Gilliard, ? , Gibbes, and P. P. Petrov. Since, it's at Stavka at Mogilev, it could be any staff officer, but in the context of Alexei with three tutors, one wonders about a likely teacher connection. Maybe just a friend though. I'm not that familiar with the faces of Nicholas' staff and retinue.

[Sarushka]

Found the answer in Tsesarevich: it's V. I. Voiekov.