What if George, Duke of York and Czarevitch Nicholas Switched ?

These two cousins had such a strong resemblance that, on at least one occasion, George took Nicholas's place so this painfully shy heir wouldn't have to endure a public event and none of the spectators knew.
Any possibility of them pulling it off for longer than this one occasion and,if so, what impact would this 'Duke and Czarevitch/ Prince and Pauper' deal result?
 
These two cousins had such a strong resemblance that, on at least one occasion, George took Nicholas's place so this painfully shy heir wouldn't have to endure a public event and none of the spectators knew.
Any possibility of them pulling it off for longer than this one occasion and,if so, what impact would this 'Duke and Czarevitch/ Prince and Pauper' deal result?

What is your source for this?

They shared some similar facial characteristics but they were by no means identical and could clearly be told apart.
 
True, George had a much thinner face. I think parade goers wouldn't have been so discerning,though.
In any case, it's an especially bitter irony that they had been close friends as boys then as grown men so that makes it all the more maddening that George V refused asylum. I
 
True, George had a much thinner face. I think parade goers wouldn't have been so discerning,though.
In any case, it's an especially bitter irony that they had been close friends as boys then as grown men so that makes it all the more maddening that George V refused asylum. I

It just seems to me to be an invented story.

I cannot imagine that in either the strict Russian or British courts that this kind of tom foolery would be tolerated for even a second.

Maybe they were able to get away with it while visiting their grandparents in Denmark, there are lots of stories of royals including Alexander III and Edward VII acting incognito while in Denmark, in a way they never could in their home countries.

I don't find it upsetting George V refused Nicholas II asylum. They obviously shared some facial characteristics and they may have been friends, albeit they actually spent very little time together as adults but they were very different men.

One was a constitutional monarch, the other was an authoritarian dictator.

People sometimes like to forget that when they romanticise the Romanovs.

Had Nicholas spent more time looking to the way George operated as King and the success that George had, he might not have ended up in the situation he did.

Ultimately George placed the survival of his dynasty before everything else. I can respect that. He is arguably the most significant British monarch in centuries.
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
Are you suggesting plastic surgery? Sir Harold Gilles could easily do that. A bit more face here, and a little less there... Of course, haemophilia would be a problem.
 
As this picture of the two heirs show, they look similar but not identical. Prince George's eyes are more piercing while Tsarevitch Nicholas' are quiet ordinary. PG has a wider and longer face while TN has a smaller narrower face.
2f08f809d63463b7b9ddb56f20d31dfb.jpg

In any case this would be seen as an act of Espionage at best and act of Treason at worst, as what they would be doing is acting and dressing up, as a person of authority.
 
Well said

The Wales children the future George V and his siblings were far less keen on their Danish holidays than their Romanov cousins

In fact the revolution's biggest impact on George was a slightly critical comment about Alicky (the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna) being very foolish and the reactions of his mother (who he doted on) and his sister Victoria (who was closer to her cousin's).

The overriding aim of the British Government in 1917 was to prop up the Provisional Government hence the initial asylum offer later it was rescinded at the King's insistance due to adverse reaction in Britain and by the time that was done it was clear the Provisional Government couldn't have accepted the offer - they had been required to give guarantees Nicholas would not be allowed to leave to the Bolshevik members of the Duma (to that end Queen Alexandra was asked to stop writing inflammatory letters to her sister for example)

George was acting in the interests of his country and it only seems difficult to those who as you say romanticize Nicholas and Alexandra in light of their and their children's ultimate fate.
1917 was a particularly difficult year for George domestically and the year that saw him abandon his german titles, sign the titles deprivation act and change the family name to Windsor.

Nicholas had been told in his mother's hearing on the last time he saw her just days after his abdication to leave the country and not return to Petersburg - he refused to listen.
The couple were later offered the chance for some of their loyal courtiers to take the imperial children to Finland again the offer was refused.
Nicholas like many of his relatives left it far too late to leave the country.

It just seems to me to be an invented story.

I cannot imagine that in either the strict Russian or British courts that this kind of tom foolery would be tolerated for even a second.

Maybe they were able to get away with it while visiting their grandparents in Denmark, there are lots of stories of royals including Alexander III and Edward VII acting incognito while in Denmark, in a way they never could in their home countries.

I don't find it upsetting George V refused Nicholas II asylum. They obviously shared some facial characteristics and they may have been friends, albeit they actually spent very little time together as adults but they were very different men.

One was a constitutional monarch, the other was an authoritarian dictator.

People sometimes like to forget that when they romanticise the Romanovs.

Had Nicholas spent more time looking to the way George operated as King and the success that George had, he might not have ended up in the situation he did.

Ultimately George placed the survival of his dynasty before everything else. I can respect that. He is arguably the most significant British monarch in centuries.
 
Well said

The Wales children the future George V and his siblings were far less keen on their Danish holidays than their Romanov cousins

In fact the revolution's biggest impact on George was a slightly critical comment about Alicky (the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna) being very foolish and the reactions of his mother (who he doted on) and his sister Victoria (who was closer to her cousin's).

The overriding aim of the British Government in 1917 was to prop up the Provisional Government hence the initial asylum offer later it was rescinded at the King's insistance due to adverse reaction in Britain and by the time that was done it was clear the Provisional Government couldn't have accepted the offer - they had been required to give guarantees Nicholas would not be allowed to leave to the Bolshevik members of the Duma (to that end Queen Alexandra was asked to stop writing inflammatory letters to her sister for example)

George was acting in the interests of his country and it only seems difficult to those who as you say romanticize Nicholas and Alexandra in light of their and their children's ultimate fate.
1917 was a particularly difficult year for George domestically and the year that saw him abandon his german titles, sign the titles deprivation act and change the family name to Windsor.

Nicholas had been told in his mother's hearing on the last time he saw her just days after his abdication to leave the country and not return to Petersburg - he refused to listen.
The couple were later offered the chance for some of their loyal courtiers to take the imperial children to Finland again the offer was refused.
Nicholas like many of his relatives left it far too late to leave the country.

Agree with everything.

I've often wondered, how the execution of just Nicholas and Alexandra would have been percieved internationally? Had the children been spared.

I think their reputations were salvaged by the brutal and wholly unjustified execution of their children with them.
 
Agree with everything.

I've often wondered, how the execution of just Nicholas and Alexandra would have been percieved internationally? Had the children been spared.

I think their reputations were salvaged by the brutal and wholly unjustified execution of their children with them.

Would it not be made worse by the fact that these young royals being left orphaned and explaining their pain at loosing their loving parents.
 
Would it not be made worse by the fact that these young royals being left orphaned and explaining their pain at loosing their loving parents.

Um speaking purely from my own personal view, I'd rather struggle with the loss of my parents than share their death in a basement being bayoneted to death, which seems to have been the fate of most of the girls.

I suppose its a scenario faced by Holocaust survivors. Many of them seem to say that they had a deep, deep will to fight and carry on and survive at all costs. It is remarkable they had such determination, when they had no way of knowing if or when they would be freed.

Many Romanovs experienced loss of relatives and loved ones. You also have to remember that we are talking about a post WW1 climate, sympathy for the children's loss would only go so far, most people probably knew someone who had died in the war.
 
Top