Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden (1883-1956)

[Dominic_Albanese]

You raise interesting and valid questions.  Without becoming a commentary on FOTR (there has been plenty of that on other threads) can you speak to your knowledge on this subject.  I guess I think it is possible (likely) that those close to the IF can (and did) 'sell them out' (for lack of a better term) to save their own lives.  Buxhoeveden is as much of a candidate for that as anyone else I'd think.  And Greg & Penny put an enormous amount of time and effort into that book - to the best of my knowledge nothing has been unproven as of yet.  But your points are well taken - that book was written for the 'masses' - but that doesn't mean that it is in anyway inaccurate.

In a very short period of time you have provided a great deal of new (atleast to me) and wonderful information.  Can you speak to the source of your knowledge?  Your writing strikes me as highly thought out, very knowledable, and plenty deep - what is your background?

By the way, I am very much enjoying your posts - as I reread my last message I don't think that came through.

dca

[AlexP]

Here is what I found in FOTR.
PP. 148
"Unknown to both of these men, (Gibbes and Gilliard) and ignoared by Buxhoeveden in her memoirs, was her interrogation that afternoon. A few members of the Ural Regional Soviet and Eakterinburg Cheka entered the railroad coach where she waited alone, questioning her at length about her revelations to Rodionov aboard the Rus. During the sessionm, Buxhoeveden repeated her knowledge of the imperial family's hidden jewerly, a final betrayal that guaranteed her freedom and helped seal the fate of the prisioners." King and Wilson cite as their source:  Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO,f. 41, op. 1, d. 149
According to King and Wilson both Gibbes and Gilliard questioned why Buxhoeveden was allowed to go free.
Apparently, by revealing the secret of the jewels, she secured her own freedom. I find it curious that the interrogation was not mentioned in her writings.

Lexi4, Thank you for the post but this is an exact example to which I am referring.  Penny and King quote someone else who has quoted someone who has quoted someone else.

1. "Waited coach alone".  Did the guards of the coach write their memoires?  Was there an inspection performed on who was in the coach and by whom?  Was Bykov personally at the scene?

2. "Her revelations to Rodionov".  Were these revelations taken down in long-form by a secretary?  Were they formalized?  Is there any reason to believe that they may NOT be spurious?  Does a written copy of these "revelations" still exist?  Has the copy been authenticated?  Did she sign her "revelations"?

3.  As for the "jewlery assertions", were these taken down by a secretary?  Is there undisputable evidence or are we to believe a group of murdering, lieing, plundering Boshelviks?  Consider the characters, please, of those "indisputable" sources.

As I said, excuse the pen, this is not a scholarly work.  It is meant for reading by the masses in the heartlands of the United States after dinner.  It is not an inculpation.  It is history for the masses.

[AlexP]

You raise interesting and valid questions.  Without becoming a commentary on FOTR (there has been plenty of that on other threads) can you speak to your knowledge on this subject.

In a very short period of time you have provided a great deal of new (atleast to me) and wonderful information.  Can you speak to the source of your knowledge?  Your writing strikes me as highly thought out, very knowledable, and plenty deep - what is your background.

Dominc, thank you very much.  No, quite frankly, I did indeed and do indeed continue to enjoy your postings.   I will be in contact with you to answer your questions.

dca

[AlexP]

These are very, very serious allegations.  
  
And since they are serious allegations, in Western countries, the burden of proof is not up the accused to proove his or her innonence but upon the accuser to proove the culpability of the accuser.  
  
If one cannot prove such accusations, when they are set forth in writing, around here it is called label.
 
The term is "libel", not "label".
 
One of the foremost rights guaranteed to all citizens is freedom of expression.  There are few limits to this freedom and one of the only ones is that of defamation against another person which causes him or her to lose reputation and/or financial benefits.

In both the United States and Great Britain, deference is given to the publisher of the statements which are alleged to be libelous.  in other words, the burden of proof is on the person claiming to have been libelled.  The presumption is that the person who wrote the offending statements is not guilty of libel unless proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have acted with MALICE.
 
Opinion or a belief in the veracity of the statement is an absolute defense to any charge of malice.  In addition, a dead person cannot sue for libel.  Nor can his or her descendants.
 
In the instant case, two prominent experts on Romanov history, Penny Wilson and Greg King have researched the entire Romanov Imperial Family period of incarceration in Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg.  In doing their research, they accessed numerous hitherto undiscovered, unexplored archives in Russia.  Their conclusions regarding the Baroness are set forth in their book The Fate of the Romanovs, a heavy tome which not only presents a detailed and well-researched narrative of the facts, but provides endless pages of sources and footnotes.  
 
Should anyone attempt to file a claim of defamation of character on behalf of the Baroness, that person would be laughed out of court. She is not only dead, but the statements about her in the book are backed up by witness statements made in Russia, by eye-witnesses.
 
Furthermore, Message Boards of the instant kind are created and maintained for the express purpose of allowing individuals to post and express their opinions and conclusions regarding matters of interest.   One should not expect otherwise.  

I refer the above-mentioned poster to the fact this is an International Bulletin Board and thus we are not limited in our concepts to American jurisprudence.  Additionally, as perhaps the  above-mentioned poster is not aware, in European countries, in Russia, in China, in Japan, and in India, thus in those countries accouting for nearly 95% of the people in the world, the legal systems hold defamation and libel to be otherwise that the above-mentioned poster has set forth.  In the European countries, and in modern Russia, in particular, the onus is upon the person setting forth the libellous and defamatory remarks to establish their credence beyond a shadow of any doubt.  Magazines and publications in these countries regularly have to retract inflammatory comments and pay large fines. And in many cases, libellous comments upon deceased family members have also been held to be libellous.

So, all, let's try to remember the international scope of this Forum.

[Forum Admin]

I do know that some money from the Emperor's personal funds were transferred to them in Tobolsk. After that, un named friends did send more money. Now, the suite also had about 150000 rubles hidden among them for the IF (see Volkov).  Don't forget that there was also a huge scam going at this time, raising money for the "Emperor's support and escape" but not a kopeck ended up going there (see Volkov again).  As for whether Baroness B. did "sell out the IF" remains to be seen, but not for sure. The real truth is that the Bolsheviks found NONE of the IF's jewels until their murder, and the genuine bulk not found until 1933, and more sent out of the country hidden in their remaining luggage;  so even  "if" Baroness B. made such a revelation, the Bolsheviks really made no profit from it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, she told them "what they wanted to hear" to save herself, without really giving up the genuine secrets of the jewels. My two cents.

[AlexP]

I do know that some money from the Emperor's personal funds were transferred to them in Tobolsk. After that, un named friends did send more money. Now, the suite also had about 150000 rubles hidden among them for the IF (see Volkov).  Don't forget that there was also a huge scam going at this time, raising money for the "Emperor's support and escape" but not a kopeck ended up going there (see Volkov again).  As for whether Baroness B. did "sell out the IF" remains to be seen, but not for sure. The real truth is that the Bolsheviks found NONE of the IF's jewels until their murder, and the genuine bulk not found until 1933, and more sent out of the country hidden in their remaining luggage;  so even  "if" Baroness B. made such a revelation, the Bolsheviks really made no profit from it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, she told them "what they wanted to hear" to save herself, without really giving up the genuine secrets of the jewels. My two cents.

Thank you FormAdm.

[lexi4]

AlexP,
I do not know what the Baroness did or did not do and by quoting Wilson and King, I am merely bringing it to the board for discussion. I do this in hopes that others, who have information will share. Alex, you make excellent points. Penny and Greg site their sources, but of course, I do not have access to those documents. So all I can rely on is books written for the masses and hope that those of you who have more information will post what you have.

[Dominic_Albanese]

FA - wasn't there also a relative of Rasputin's who was collecting money to "save the IF" but ended up keeping it himself?  I'm thinking it was one of Rasputin's Son-in-Law's, but I'm pretty hazy on this....

And I think we are saying almost the same thing on Buxhoeveden - many of us would do about anything to save our hide in a pitch - perhaps thats what she did - but as you say, this could have simply been a diversion...

One other thing comes to mind - And again, I could be off here, but wasn't there problems between GD Xenia and Buxhoeveden??

dca

[lexi4]

You are correct Dominic. It was his daughter. Alexandra had much faith in her, from what I have read.

[Finelly]

Actually, Soloviev, the son-in-law of Rasputin, may not have been as nefarious as one thinks.  He gave the money to the Baroness and was shocked that she kept it.......for many years, everyone thought he had not given it to her.

As for Xenia, she absolutely refused to receive the Baroness after the Revolution and sent a number of letters to Victoria Milford Haven warning her that the Baroness had betrayed the Rs.

[AlexP]

Actually, Soloviev, the son-in-law of Rasputin, may not have been as nefarious as one thinks.  He gave the money to the Baroness and was shocked that she kept it.......for many years, everyone thought he had not given it to her.

As for Xenia, she absolutely refused to receive the Baroness after the Revolution and sent a number of letters to Victoria Milford Haven warning her that the Baroness had betrayed the Rs.

Yes, the Grand Duchess Xenia so detested Baroness von Buxhoeveden, that in her great contempt, she was kind enough to arrange for the issuance of her "droit-de-sejour" in Great Britain and that the Duchess of Milford Haven had the poor taste to both assist the Baroness in securing some form of sinecure and that in November 1956 relatives of the Duchess of M.H. attended Mme. von B.'s funeral in the Russian Church in London (a quite well-attended funeral actually).

Again, as for a previous posting, it is additionally judgmental based upon a compilation of a compilation of a compilation.  As you wish, however.

[lexi4]

Now I am very curious about her, but can find nothing written about her. Does anyone know of any books are articles I can read? I find it curious that there seems to be so little about her.

[Annie]

I can also confirm that one could buy freedom from the Red soldiers.  Tante Lilly's mother bought her brother George's freedom right off the prison train in Kidslovosk for 2,000 gold rubles.

But even then they could not be trusted Anna Vyrubova reported that even when paid off, they were known to still rat you out. Sometimes even the people helping you escape would do the same. So you were always taking a chance.

Sometimes Red soldiers have to be bribed, and often they sell out the people whose money they accept. Sometimes also the men who contract to take refugees over the ice betray their passengers to the Bolshevik guards. Any way you look at it, escape from Bolshevik Russia is about as perilous as going unarmed into a tiger's cage. Yet people dare it, and we did.

[AlexP]

But even then they could not be trusted Anna Vyrubova reported that even when paid off, they were known to still rat you out. Sometimes even the people helping you escape would do the same. So you were always taking a chance.

Sometimes Red soldiers have to be bribed, and often they sell out the people whose money they accept. Sometimes also the men who contract to take refugees over the ice betray their passengers to the Bolshevik guards. Any way you look at it, escape from Bolshevik Russia is about as perilous as going unarmed into a tiger's cage. Yet people dare it, and we did.

A Spanish saying comes to minds about Vryubova's quote on all of this : "le dijo el loro al cuervo".

[Belochka]

A Spanish saying comes to minds about Vryubova's quote on all of this : "le dijo el loro al cuervo".

Which translates in English to ....?