The Russian Royal Family

[Terry Denham]

Whatever your views on this topic, do not make personal attacks on other members.

You have been warned.

[AndyHollinger]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Aug 16 2006, 02:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In what respects were the Romanovs less worthy of respect than the other European Royals, Andy? Was talent or judgement conspicuously evident elsewhere? Phil B

First of all, my comment was short enough to appear very rude. I'm sorry if it appeared such.

Phil ....

There actually is reasoning behind this. With the exception of Kaiser Bill (only named such because I'd make a really bad job of writing Hollerzollern - see?) The Romanov's had REAL power. They were almost in the 12th Century mode ruling monarchs. Their rule of Russia was miserably mismanged to the point beyond rediculous ... can you imagine a British Monarch of either Tudor or before (you have to go back that far to get close to the personal power level of Czar Nicholas II) ... providing that much power to Rasputin? The history of the 20th Century Romanovs ... heck you can take it back farther ... is one of almost mindless persuit of pleasure and entrusting the government of the world's biggest country or most closely run Empire not just into the ground, but an increasingly chaotic mess.

There is not a country in Europe ... maybe even Hungary ... where the citizens enjoyed fewer rights and a lower standard of living. The Czar has been characterized by the romantic western press as a "good man" and a "loving husband and father" ... that's, maybe, true ... but his job was to be Emporer ... Think about what people took for granted in Russia ... from Pogroms to starvation of Serfs - okay - freed (marginally) serfs and it would be impossible in any other country barring the balkans ...

So ... when I see the "poor" Nicky stuff ... it just stands me up ... His rule was so bad (and how bad was it?) the bolshevics (sp) seemed a better choice. While it is true that his children were not to blame ... their life of priviledge and endless pleasure was not the life of their Russian counterpart children living in endless agony, filth and disease ... their death meant there was no return and the corner had been turned ... if they recieve the wonders of their life before the revolution because of the accident of zygotes, perhaps in that sense their death can be justified ...

The fact that the revolution brought us unspeakable horrors under Stalin is not an issue - Russia has no "good old days" ...

Again, sorry if I ruffled some feathers with blunt or rude speach.

Even Wilhem did a better job for his German subjects

[Neil Burns]

Like many things, timing had a big impact on the Romanov family's fate after the February Revolution the family was placed under house arrest but under no real threat of execution by the Provisional government. Most likely they could have left Russia at the time but there was no real urgency.

After the bolshevik seizure of power and the beginning of the Civil War, ther was very little chance of the Bolsheviks allowing the royal family to leave Russia.

I seem to recall that the Bolsheviks offered to send the Romanovs to Britain but the offer was more akin to a ransom and there is doubt that the Bosheviks were ever serious. Most likely an attempt just to embarass Britain.

I am away from my books right now, perhaps someone can either elaborate on the above or confirm that I've lost my mind!

In fairness to Andy, I think he meant the Tsar's own actions led to the Romanov execution, not that the family morally deserved their fate.

Neil

[michaeldr]

It is interesting that Andy mentions Wilhelm, who was also (like KGV) a relative of the Czar

What about his part in the Russian revolution?

The German foreign ministry provided many millions of Marks to the Bolsheviks [analysis dated 4th Feb 1918 shows German foreign office spending on 'Russia' - read Bolsheviks - as follows, allocation 40,580,997 Marks of which 26,566,122 Marks had already been spent by 31st Jan 1918]

The Germans correctly saw the Bolsheviks as a 'peace' party and this was their way to help release badly needed troops from the eastern front to the west in time for their Spring Offensive. German foreign ministry docs show that the Kaiser was kept informed throughout.

[Details from Michael Pearson's 'The Sealed Train.']

regards

Michael

[Muerrisch]

It was clear from my attempts at light heartedness on this subject that:

a. I know nothing of it.

b. have no opinions, and

c. couldn't care less except I disapprove of murder however dressed up as execution.

But I shouldn't have stuck my nose in, as clearly there are those who do not share a. and b. with me!

Whats this ahoj thingy?

[Solo33]

It was clear from my attempts at light heartedness on this subject that:

a. I know nothing of it.

b. have no opinions, and

c. couldn't care less except I disapprove of murder however dressed up as execution.

I'm with you on (a) and a little of (, but last week I finished a book on the cultural revolution in China, and last night I watched a programme on the French revolution. One thing that these revolutions seem have in common is that the poor (who had nothing) rise to a position of power and then destroy everything of beauty and intellect.

Each time I see a photo of the Romanov family, I ask myself how any human being could destroy something so beautiful (regardless of their political guilt or innocence).

I've often felt that one reason why we never had a similar revolution in Britain is that rather than the guillotine or firing squad, we got rid of our aristocracy and intellectuals on the Somme.

Gordon

PS. I think ahoj is Belgian for "Hello Sailor", aka Kenneth Williams!!

[PhilB]

From www.firstworldwar.com:-

"Nicholas II was persuaded to abdicate on 15 March 1917 under the recommendation of the Russian Army High Command. In search of exile elsewhere, Lloyd George offered a haven in Britain, only for the offer to be withdrawn under the direction of King George V, who did not wish to be associated with his autocratic cousin at this point: a controversial decision."

1/ Is this a fair statement? And, if so -

2/ Who was right, DLlG or KGV? Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

I trust very little of DLG ... at all.

In the immortal words of Mel Brooks "It's good to be king" ... but really ... if you live above the muck and horror of the common people because you're supposed to rule and you make a mess of it as bad as Nicholas Romanov ... you've got to accept the fact that it's a violent world ... just think of the people the Romanovs condemned to death ... the fact that the kids were killed is A - too bad but, because of the way Kingship is passed down (not exactly a meritocracy, is it) they're fair game ...

I think we let our own opinion of royals get in the way ... We don't remember that, frankly, Charles had to die ... there was no other way around it ... had the tables been reversed, would we morn for Cromwell? (I seem to remember his remains being desecrated upon the Restoration) ... We English speaking people have had an incredible string of good or at least passible monarchs that other countries have not and did not experience ... can you imagine what would have happened if we'd had Hollenzollerns or Romanovs ... Walpole would have cashiered the lot of them ... and while in the last few Centuries we haven't taken this King stuff so seriously we'd actually kill the young pretender ... (unsporting you know) ... his followers didn't exactly get any discretion at Colloden ...

Hollywood (and a WWI alliance) has made the Romanovs "nice" ... If you look at history ... even factoring the Eastern European culture factor ... Romanovs were either gangsters or just dolts ... and Nicholas was probably both ...

But at the risk of losing what positive reputation I might have here ... I, too, will say "ahoj" ...

Which if it is "Hello Sailor" in some language ... I still remember actually digging through my pockets for a match when one well painted lady wearing an incredibly short skirt approached me and asked for a light the first pay friday in Junction City - the camp-town for Fort Riley ...

But, I was younger then ... can you imagine 43 years ago!?!

[Neil Burns]

It's Ahoy, the letter 'j' is pronounced as a 'y' in the Polish language and the gentleman using the term resides in Warsaw.

Do Widzenia,

Neil

[PhilB]

Andy - does that mean you go for 1/ yes & 2/ KGV? Phil B

[Borys]

Ahoj!

Again, sorry if I ruffled some feathers with blunt or rude speach.

OK.

Now, the "ahoj!" thing. It is the maritime greeting, but written in Polish. But it is - as stated by Neil (dziękuję) - pronounced the same.

I use as header becase it is recognized (or assumed to be) a greeting, regardless if I write in Polish or English. Saves me the bother of having two, i.e. one for each.

Borys

[FAAAEd]

Of all the topics in WWI to worry about .... IMHO the Romanovs deserved their fate ... if there were ever a powerful family devoid of talent or judgement, it is they.

I can think of another such, currently influential, family, not a million miles from yourself, who answer such a description.