Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917

[Constantinople]

Also there is no reason why the British could not have taken the imperial family to Malta initially and let them stay there  until things cooled down.  There was enough murder in Russia to have calmed opinions towards all the members of the immediate Imperial family after 1919.

[Kalafrana]

I don't think that Marie Feodorovna and her daughters were welcomed 'with open arms' as that implies enthusiasm. If you read the van der Kiste book on Xenia there was a fair amount of to-ing and fro-ing with the Foreign Office over visas for their entourage. The Foreign Office didn't allow any Grand Dukes into this country - they seem to have made an exception for Dimitri, but I don't yet know on what basis. Van der Kiste makes the point that Xenia's sons were allowed to stay here because they weren't Grand Dukes. The whole business is interestingly remeniscent of the current controversies over asylum seekers! In the end only Xenia and her family stayed here, and they largely stayed out of the public eye.

Yes, I agree that the best chance of getting the family out was in the immediate aftermath of the February Revolution. The measles made things difficult, but there probably was a window of opportunity  immediately they recovered. I am in the midst of reading the memoirs of Princess Cantacuzene (which BlessOTMA has very kindly entrusted to me). She was American (granddaughter of Ulysses S Grant) and she and her husband sent their children to America via the Trans Siberian Railway in July 1917. Getting the necessary documentation was very difficult, but the journey itself went off without a hitch. If the family had been prepared to travel incognito without a big entourage and a lot of luggage (the three young Cantacuzenes went with a tutor, a governess and a couple of maids) then maybe something similar could have been done.

Ann

[Constantinople]

CAngtacuzene sounds like a Byzantine name.

[Kalafrana]

It does indeed. Unfortunately, Princess C doesn't mention its origins - at least not in the parts I've read so far.

[Constantinople]

Thre was an ambassador who had a name from one of the ruling family and it turned out that his father or grandfather had changed the name because it had Byzantine connotations.

[Constantinople]

I received an email from Sir Martin Gilbert who told me he thought that it was King George's fear of what industrial action on British docks would do that prompted the king to rescind the offer.

[Sergei Witte]

the British left wing didn't like it and as Corynne Hall comments one paper describing MF as the "evil genius of her son's reign".

"MF as evil genius of her son's reign"??!!!

What were they thinking, those arrogant British. For ages they dominated the world seas, thinking that they were the only ones entitled to do so. For instance they were always denying Russia the right to use the straits as a passage to the Mediterranian. (They even denied the Russians their right to have a Black Sea fleet, right in their front door!!!) When a passage through the straits was forced after St Stefano, the British instantly went whining about this to Bismarck who made sure that the free passage was undone by the Treaty of Berlin. England was the traditional enemy of Russia before WilhelmII came into the picture. England only became friendly with Russia in 1907 because Edward Grey wanted to get as much allies gathered as possible to counterbalance Germany!  

The rise of German power is often seen as the main cause of WWI but the British fear of losing world dominance was just as important.

So if I were Nicholas, I would rather die in Russia then take exile to England. I would take the honor, for sure.  

PLEASE NOTE I don't want to insult the British. I am just referring to the world situation before WWI.

[Constantinople]

Another issue that the British government faced during the period of 1917 to 1919 was Irish independence.  One thing that comes through about King George is that he had sympathies for teh working classes and that may have weighed against exile for the Tsar's family.  It didnt seem to stop them in 1917 when the British were begging the  Russians to stay in the war.

[Eddie_uk]

What were they thinking, those arrogant British. For ages they dominated the world seas, thinking that they were the only ones entitled to do so.

PLEASE NOTE I don't want to insult the British. I am just referring to the world situation before WWI.

Aw Britain couldn't help being Great!! Didn't Cecil Rhodes say that to be born English was to win first prize in the lottery of life? A wonderful nation, which deserved nothing less than admiration, I stand up and salute it!!

[Constantinople]

Britain is also responsible for the rise of Japanese militarism after 1905, distributing opium to the Chinese, most of today's problems in the middle east and a host of other problems that resulted from the expedient economic exploitation fo the world.

[Nicola De Valeron]

the British left wing didn't like it and as Corynne Hall comments one paper describing MF as the "evil genius of her son's reign".

"MF as evil genius of her son's reign"??!!!

What were they thinking, those arrogant British. For ages they dominated the world seas, thinking that they were the only ones entitled to do so. For instance they were always denying Russia the right to use the straits as a passage to the Mediterranian. (They even denied the Russians their right to have a Black Sea fleet, right in their front door!!!) When a passage through the straits was forced after St Stefano, the British instantly went whining about this to Bismarck who made sure that the free passage was undone by the Treaty of Berlin. England was the traditional enemy of Russia before WilhelmII came into the picture. England only became friendly with Russia in 1907 because Edward Grey wanted to get as much allies gathered as possible to counterbalance Germany!  

The rise of German power is often seen as the main cause of WWI but the British fear of losing world dominance was just as important.

So if I were Nicholas, I would rather die in Russia then take exile to England. I would take the honor, for sure.  

PLEASE NOTE I don't want to insult the British. I am just referring to the world situation before WWI.

I totally agree with Eddie.

Sergei, I respect you and your sober-minded thoughts on the Rus. Rev. and History threads, but your last words and a little bit out of place "generalization" surprised me.

If we will talk strictly about the World History itself and different British/English actions, they were all very different as an in any nation. Both right and wrong. There is no place here of simple generalization. But for me, one thing is indisputable: Britain (better to say England) during all it's main History has been a powerfull, free, economically developed and modern state with a great opportunities for any human of any views and a great example for free-minded/liberal people from the other contries. I can mention for example former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky (now informal leader of UKIP), who've found only in this country worthy opportunities for his work and life. I can also add that today this country remain one of the few members of EU, which oppose the newfangled EU socialistic and utopian slow rebuilding to another "Soviet Union" (european police, excessive political correctness, lost country's identity, different "green" movements and so on...).

If you/your country have some complexes about Britain (power, freedom, great History) - this is not problem of Britain, this is totally your own problems, on my opinion. As to the British people itself, I have never met in my life such a wonderful, smart, funny, moderately conservative and free people, as the British people or better to say English;).

[Sergei Witte]

Nicola,

To me it just seems unbelievable that the British king, who had only minor problems compared to Nicholas, would let his relatives in Russia rot away. There is no excuse for that. Also considering the fact that England was on the opposition of Russian aims so many times, thwarting them, I would think it would be nice they did something in return now. But I guess politics don't work that way.

Maybe my comment is too personal, I know. I will try better next time.

But I have no further problems with the British, I hope I don't get them now...

[Robert_Hall]

There is nothing  "nice"  when it comes to war  and  revolutionary upheaval.

[Nicola De Valeron]

To me it just seems unbelievable that the British king, who had only minor problems compared to Nicholas, would let his relatives in Russia rot away. There is no excuse for that.

Sergei, I think we are both normal people and should think without any obsession or fanaticism about the Romanovs. Of course maybe morally that action was wrong. But if seriously, tell me please why the British King should have been rescue Nicholas? Any particular reasons in addition to relationship? I think that if we will talk without an obsession, British King/Queen has a lot of business in their own country in addition to Nicholas II. The problem is that Nicholas II and Imperial family is not the whole world. I understand George actions clearly. And finally, I think we should adhere the serious Historic laws and less talk about the morality in the case of serious Historic things.

Also considering the fact that England was on the opposition of Russian aims so many times, thwarting them, I would think it would be nice they did something in return now.

Oh yes, you are totally right! And this is not the British problem;). Maybe it was/are something wrong with Russia? I think without any doubts, this is right that they were doing it and still doing the same things. I think that if you see all the wrong politics and terrible things that are happening in another country (Russia all this time was far away from the modern and free country) your should at least not to be indifferent in this case or better try to take some serious action. "Realpolitik" in this case does more harm and serious consequences for both sides.

Maybe my comment is too personal, I know. I will try better next time.

Oh no, nothing personal and I'm not an Englishman;). I just was a little surprised with your strange for me words and simple/a little bit out of place generalisation.

[Constantinople]

I totally agree with Sergei.  The British (as in the government and elite) are totally opportunisitic and always have been.  Britain has seen Russia as an enemy, mainly because it caused problems for colonies that it was exploiting.  To let ones relatives rot and then be murdered when your own government was actually trying to do something is craven.