When you say "Alexis", you're talking about Alexei Nikolaevich, right? Just want to make sure.
WI: George V doesn’t turn his back on his Romanoff cousins and grants them asylum in Britain?
- Thread starter Chungus Maximus
- Start date
When you say "Alexis", you're talking about Alexei Nikolaevich, right? Just want to make sure.
He had previously asked Alexandra to marry him, so it is highly likely he would have given her asylum (and of course her husband and children too).
Would they be stalked from palace to palace until they are finally killed by a Stalin Agent?
Barry Bull
Donor
One important point that many leaders of the Russian White Army were actually reformists and republicans. That indicated how unpopular Nicholas II was.
There seems to be some odd ideas about how British monarchy works
GV was not an absolute monarch he couldn't just say rescue him and people would scurry around making it happen
so a few points:
1). It was the British government that would decide whether or not to do so
2). The Tsar was not a popular figure in Britain, there being lots of reports of the killings and repression at his orders
3). there was fear that what was happening in Russia could spread, and one monarch parachuting out his cousin could potentially be a trigger.
4). the choice at the time wasn't as stark as save him or he and his family dies (although clearly them remaining in Russia was more risky than leaving).
5). in 1917 there still this little war gong on, and everything would be seen through that prism
6). as a king (even a constitutional one) GV's wasn't making decision purely based on personal preference anyway
GV was not an absolute monarch he couldn't just say rescue him and people would scurry around making it happen
so a few points:
1). It was the British government that would decide whether or not to do so
2). The Tsar was not a popular figure in Britain, there being lots of reports of the killings and repression at his orders
3). there was fear that what was happening in Russia could spread, and one monarch parachuting out his cousin could potentially be a trigger.
4). the choice at the time wasn't as stark as save him or he and his family dies (although clearly them remaining in Russia was more risky than leaving).
5). in 1917 there still this little war gong on, and everything would be seen through that prism
6). as a king (even a constitutional one) GV's wasn't making decision purely based on personal preference anyway
Last edited:
While all of which is perfectly true. His Majesty’s Royal Marines and out units did get involved in combat against the ‘reds’ in the Russian civil war.
So maybe a cloak and dagger (black ops) escapade could be arranged. A few dead bodies in a burnt out farm house, identified as the Romanoffs, whilst the real family whisked away to some far off corner of the empire.
cool though that would be remember were still fighting the first World war in 1917, the Russian Civil war or rather our involvement in it came after (albeit not long after) .
On the WW1 point the treaty of Brest-litov isn't signed until Mar18, until then no one is 100% sure what the PG (and then the Nov17 govt) is going to do in terms of fighting or coming to terms with Germany. So potentially antagonising moves like sneaking in and spiriting away a prominent and divisive figure like the Tsar and Co isn't a great idea when you are still kind of hoping the Russian Govt at the time might still be of some help in some way in the continuing war.
Also the threat of that kind of move is a big reason why the Bolsheviks killed them all, the problem with the idea of we'll just hide them somewhere is history is replete with examples of heirs to the throne not staying hidden or those hiding them changing their minds about the role they might play.
Last edited:
The Romanovs could have revealed to the public that Alexei suffered from Hemophilia and that the asylum request was for humanitarian reasons. I think the British public would have been accepting to a sickly teenager.
The revelation that the Crown Prince of Russia suffers from a life threatening disease could be a win for the Revolution as well. It shows that the Romanov Dynasty is possibly doomed anyway with a sickly heir to the throne and that the Tsar has been dishonest with not only Russia but the world.
Public knowledge of Alexei’s hemophilia could also have negative effects for The Romanovs in England. The idea of one of the Russian Grand Duchesses marrying the Prince of Wales might not ever be brought up. The fact that Hemophilia originates from Queen Victoria would quietly continue to be suppressed.
Another option for the British would be to get the Romanovs to Archangel during the Allies Intervention in 1918. The Tsar and family can stay in a farmhouse somewhere under the care of His Majesty’s Forces. Once the Russian Civil War turns against The Whites, put The Romanovs on a ship to England and once again tuck them away on some quiet estate.
The revelation that the Crown Prince of Russia suffers from a life threatening disease could be a win for the Revolution as well. It shows that the Romanov Dynasty is possibly doomed anyway with a sickly heir to the throne and that the Tsar has been dishonest with not only Russia but the world.
Public knowledge of Alexei’s hemophilia could also have negative effects for The Romanovs in England. The idea of one of the Russian Grand Duchesses marrying the Prince of Wales might not ever be brought up. The fact that Hemophilia originates from Queen Victoria would quietly continue to be suppressed.
Another option for the British would be to get the Romanovs to Archangel during the Allies Intervention in 1918. The Tsar and family can stay in a farmhouse somewhere under the care of His Majesty’s Forces. Once the Russian Civil War turns against The Whites, put The Romanovs on a ship to England and once again tuck them away on some quiet estate.
Would the West's propaganda during the Cold War now contains messages from the royal family and calls for a royalist counterrevolution?
With the main line still strong would any of them be offered the throne after the Soviet Union falls?
With the main line still strong would any of them be offered the throne after the Soviet Union falls?
I don't see why it is so hard for some people to get that monarchism has never been popular in Russia/the USSR since 1917. Even on the Right, it is mostly a sentimental attachment largely due to the very fact that the Tsar and his family were murdered.
The West would have to be idiots to call for a monarchist restoration during the Cold War. It would simply play into the hands of the Soviet leaders and their propaganda. (In any event, the West did not call for the overthrow of the Soviet regime during the Cold War and its replacement by any alternate regime, republican or monarchist.)
Why not? Especially if the Soviets were supporting communist parties and movements in the West.
Deleted member 94680
More like the other way round. The Cabinet was never keen on the idea of Nicholas coming over.
FWIW, the Romanovs didn’t like Balmoral when they visited and the Empress was opposed to the idea of being placed there when it was mooted.
In the western democracies, Communist parties were generally legal and at least kept up the pretence that a "peaceful path" to socialism was possible. To advocate a sudden regime change in the East was to advocate violent revolution--there was no other way--and the West did not want to be accused of urging people to risk their lives in futile revolts. (In particular, after Hungary the US was sensitive to the charge that it had egged people on to suicidal resistance.) Consequently the West placed its hopes in a "gradual evolution" of Soviet-type regimes.
I would have imagined that Nicholas would enjoy Balmoral. He could pass the days hunting and fishing. However he would be catching an earful everyday from his wife complaining about their cousin’s hospitality.
Last edited:
You are not wrong. Not at all. The decision lay in George v’s hands and he sqibbed it. Lack of intestinal fortitude.
Last edited: