Author Topic: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917  (Read 45828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2010, 11:33:53 AM »
Spain diid, for one.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2010, 11:58:38 AM »
apparently Milyukov wrote a 3 volume book on the Russian Revolultion and I am sure if you can find this book, the offers or offers for exile for the Imperial family would be discussed.

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2010, 12:20:34 PM »
The Royal Navy had an Arctic Squadron based at the White Sea port of Yukanskie in 1916-17 and responsible for protecting merchant shipping to and from Archangel. according to Captain RS Gwatkin-Williams: Under the Black Ensign Archangel was usable from approximately July to November. He arrived at Yukanskie (at the western entrance to the White Sea) at the end of June 1916 and was there until the end of November, when the squadron moved to Murmansk for the rest of the winter. At the time the railway between Moscow and Murmansk was not yet complete, but it was possible to run trains on rails laid on the ice during the winter.

Ann

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #63 on: April 12, 2010, 12:49:41 PM »
that would explain why the Imperial family might be reluctant to go to Murmansk, especially with invalid children.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #64 on: April 12, 2010, 02:54:53 PM »
In 1919, George V's son John died of epilepsy.  He was 13 (more or less the same age as Alexei) I wonder if King George thought that this was retribution for rescinding the offer of sanctuary for the Imperial family?

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #65 on: April 12, 2010, 03:10:37 PM »
Why should they think that? They knew the boy's life was going to be very  short and  were prepared for it  long before events in Russia.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 03:19:45 PM by Robert_Hall »

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #66 on: April 12, 2010, 03:30:49 PM »
I wonder why the French or the Swiss didn't step up.  Both were republics, meaning they didn't have monarchs worrying about an image problem.

France has taken in the likes of the Aytollah Khomenhi (before he came to power) and Baby Doc Duvalier (after he was ousted from power in Haiti).  Why didn't they want to take Nicky and his family in?
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #67 on: April 12, 2010, 03:31:42 PM »
Possibly because it may have been possible to get the Imperial family out of Russia if Britain had demanded it.  In 1918 or 1919 it would have been obvious to King George that when he had revoked that offer, he had sentenced his first couosin and thier family to death.  This is backed up by interviews that Prince Michael of Kent has given.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2010, 03:50:54 PM »
The Ayatollah &  Baby Doc sre a long time after  the evnts of  1917, France was busy fighting a war at the time and  had more important matters to deal with. Also,  totally different governments.  I think  one has to ask Switzerland, they do not just offer assylum.  Perhaps no one asked. Also, different time and governemts. One cannot expect a situation   to be treated the same  with such distances in time.

..dlnec1

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2010, 06:12:44 PM »
Its fair to say that the conditions in factories in the UK in 1918 were not ideal, but they were not dickensian, the Liberal governments of the Edwardian era had brought in many reforms. Including old age pensions and reform of the House of Lords. The unions were begining to make a difference and times were changing in the UK. We had the one thing that Russia just did not have an educated and franchised middle class. We also had the great philanthropists, Lever-Hulme, The Cadbury family, and many other industrialists who built whole towns to house their workforces in pretty good conditions for the times. There was also universal education to the age of Evryone had a education to 14, the Fisher Act of 1918 made provision for this and the extension for tertiary to 18 on a full or part time basis. This was for all children, nothing like that existed in Russia, these plans for tertiary education were novel and ground breaking.




Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2010, 10:37:49 PM »
Well in the event, Britain got worse withoout the imperial family coming over but it wasn't because of the Romanovs. A number of them came to Britain before and after the Revolution and one was enobled in Britain.  Social unrest became worse, culminating in the Great Strik of the mid 1920s.  I seriously think that the acceptance of at least the children would have caused a revolutiion, except in the mind of George V, who seems to have been a moral coward in this situation.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #71 on: April 13, 2010, 12:50:01 AM »
that should have been I seriously doubt the acceptance of the children would have caused a revolution.

..dlnec1

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2010, 05:09:24 AM »
George V was not a moral coward, he had his country and his people to think of. The tragedy of Ekaterinburg was the beginning in a long and bloody history called the 20th century. Its is almost like the loss of a sort of innocence, that in a way did not really exist. I think people believed in a civilised society in Europe. Its like the industrial advances had been matched by a huge change in human behaviour. I suppose a bit like the Titanic, so many first class saved not enough boats.

George V did not fire the weapons that killed the Imperial Family. I do know he would have seen and had advice from Stamfordham on the vitriol that was pouring out of the British Press. Not only was Nicholas perceived as a tyrant, he was letting us down on the Eastern Front badly. It was as if everything was working against him, poor man. Actually if anything George V was morally brave saying no to his cousins who he loved. It must have been a terrible, agonising thing to have to do. Queen Mary who was fond of AF, I know was deeply affected by the events in Russia.

As for the civil unrest in the UK in 1926, that's what I mean there was enough of an educated middle class and a educated working class for there to be pretty peaceful changes. The 1926 General Strike changed Britian for ever, but peacefully and with our traditions and structures pretty intact. Yet we also changed. The Monarchy and the regard people had for it and George V played a huge part in that. No dictators for us or fascist hordes. We British do not like violent change we went through it in 17th century and disliked it very much. We sent those dull Puritans to American, no dancing and cancelling Christmas....bah humbug.....LOL

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2010, 05:55:43 AM »
No, George V was not a moral coward. His first responsibility was to his own country and his own mnonarchy, and he put aside personal feelings for that reason. Nearly a century later we may find that cold-blooded, but we have the benefit of knowing what happened in Ekaterinburg.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2010, 06:40:58 AM »
Also, the King was bound to take  his  governments advice. To do less, i.e. oppose them,  would cause a constitutional crisis, which the country  could ill afford especially at a time of war. He was not an absolute  monarch and had contraints upon him.   IMO, he was certainly not a moral coward in the least.