Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 21:59:13 GMT
Inspired by an interesting piece I read in the Daily Mail this afternoon. George V proposed an ambitious plan to rescue Nicholas II and the Romanovs from Russia on a Royal Navy battleship following the Tsar's abdication; but got cold feet at the last minute, leaving them to their fate. Suppose the plan - which was always a long shot - had gone ahead and the Tsar and his family escaped to Scotland avoiding their horrific butchering and living in exile; what would be the repercussions affecting the events that followed, both for Britain and Russia?
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jul 16, 2018 22:15:24 GMT
Inspired by an interesting piece I read in the Daily Mail this afternoon. George V proposed an ambitious plan to rescue Nicolas II and the Romanovs from Russia on a Royal Navy battleship following the Tsar's abdication; but got cold feet at the last minute, leaving them to their fate. Suppose the plan - which was always a long shot - had gone ahead and the Tsar and his family escaped to Scotland avoiding their horrific butchering and living in exile; what would be the repercussions affecting the events that followed, both for Britain and Russia? A White Russian government in exile and a restoration in the mid to late nineties driven by nostalgia in the midst of crisis, perhaps? That also probably would’ve precluded Putin rising to power if that had happened. Also if a restoration had happened perhaps Russia would’ve become a much more democratic country under a British style constitutional monarchy? It’s an interesting scenario. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 22:48:55 GMT
Inspired by an interesting piece I read in the Daily Mail this afternoon. George V proposed an ambitious plan to rescue Nicolas II and the Romanovs from Russia on a Royal Navy battleship following the Tsar's abdication; but got cold feet at the last minute, leaving them to their fate. Suppose the plan - which was always a long shot - had gone ahead and the Tsar and his family escaped to Scotland avoiding their horrific butchering and living in exile; what would be the repercussions affecting the events that followed, both for Britain and Russia? A White Russian government in exile and a restoration in the mid to late nineties driven by nostalgia in the midst of crisis, perhaps? That also probably would’ve precluded Putin rising to power if that had happened. Also if a restoration had happened perhaps Russia would’ve become a much more democratic country under a British style constitutional monarchy? It’s an interesting scenario. I also wonder what the repercussions would have been for the Second World War? If Nicholas or his successor continued to live in exile in Britain at that point it could have been very damaging to Anglo-Soviet relations and made an alliance far more difficult to achieve. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050 
|
Post by middyman on Jul 16, 2018 23:25:03 GMT
The UK has had considerable influence on Russia, even on its language. The Russian for Station is “Voksaal”. This derives from a misunderstanding mid-nineteenth century. The Tsar was visiting London and was shown the construction of the railway to Waterloo. He asked “What’s there?” or similar. The correct answer was “Station” but he was told the name of the district “Vauxhall”.
|
|
|
|
Post by raedwald on Jul 17, 2018 7:34:10 GMT
This is certainly an interesting scenario, here's my take on it:
If Nicholas II and his family arrive in Britain, then it is likely that they would be well-treated by George V, with whom the Tsar was on very good terms with as a cousin and the two had a close friendship prior to the war (which makes George V's decision to revoke the offer of asylum all the more baffling). So I could see the Romanovs receiving a country retreat or even a palace (perhaps Balmoral if they go to Scotland) where Nicholas II and Alexandra could live out the rest of their lives, with Nicholas II probably passing away around the mid to late 40s (he was the youngest of the three royal cousins, although admittedly not by much).
As for who succeeds Nicholas II as Tsar-in-exile, well it is very unlikely that poor Alexei outlives his father due to his haemophilia, so where does that leave the Russian succession? Well, that depends on several factors. If I recall correctly, Russia under the Romanovs operated under a semi-Salic law under which, while not completely ruling out females in the line of succession as is the case under pure Salic law, a woman could only inherit the throne if all male members of the Royal Family had passed away beforehand. So that makes the question of who would succeed Nicholas II as far more hazy, and it depends on the late Tsar's actions prior to his death and how many other Romanovs fled to Britain alongside Nicholas II's immediate family.
If we assume that Nicholas II, Alexandra and their children are not the only Romanovs to escape Russia and that Nicholas II makes no changes to succession prior to his death, then new Tsar-in-exile will be Nicholas II's brother, Grand Duke Michael, who will most likely claim the Russian throne as Tsar Michael II. Given that Michael was only ten years younger than Nicholas II, it is unlikely that his 'reign' would last long and it is probable that he would pass around the 50s or early 60s. That would leave Michael's son, George Mikhailovich, as the new claimant to the Russian throne, being crowned Tsar George I (unless he chooses a more 'Russian' regal name). George, being born in 1910, could well live until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, at which point he would be eighty years old, while who would succeed him as Tsar-in-exile or Tsar (if the monarchy is restored in Russia in the 90s) depends. Since he died from a motorcycle accident at the age of twenty, George had no children in our timeline and if that remains the case throughout his life (unlikely), then the throne (unless I am mistaken) would pass to Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich (if George dies before him, of course) or his daughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, both of whom were/are claimants to the Russian throne in our timeline.
However, if Nicholas II and his immediate family are the only ones to escape Russia, or Nicholas II changes the Romanovs' laws of succession out of a desire to see one of his children on the throne, then the claimant to the Russian throne upon his death would be his eldest daughter, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna - who, interestingly enough, was seen as a potential match for Prince Edward of Wales (later Edward VIII) in our timeline. So, if Edward and Olga marry while Alexei is still alive and it appears as though Olga will not inherit the throne, we could see future British monarchs, starting with Edward and Olga's children, simultaneously claiming the Russian throne! Imagine (if the Russian monarchy is restored post-USSR) a personal union of Britain and Russia - that would certainly shake the diplomatic stage up!
As for whether or not a restoration of the Russian monarchy would take place after the fall of the USSR if this scenario came to be, I'm not sure - does anyone know what Yeltsin's (or any other prominent politicians in Russia during the 90s) attitude towards the monarchy was?
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jul 17, 2018 8:07:18 GMT
Yeltsin’s attitude towards the Monarchy was one of guilt. He felt guilty, being a Communist official, that he was a Sverdlovsk Communist when they made the decision to destroy the Ipatiev House, the building in which the Romanovs were shot. He also gave a speech in, IIRC 1998, in which he said to the Russian people that “We are all guilty” in relation to tthe Romanovs murder. Further, the barbarity of the Communists in murdering the Romanovs, especially the children, was also held up by many in the 1990’s as the original example of the Soviet’s cruelty and barbarity. This view of their barbarity has receded however with Putin’s rehabilitation of the Communist, especially Stalinist, era. Although I have no idea what Yeltsin thought about making the Czar an Orthodox Saint in Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 20, 2018 23:32:38 GMT
I think it far more likely that having landed in Britain old Nick and family would then have been transferred to somewhere more remote, since his presence in the country aa a reactionary ruler would have been hard to understand for a democratic loving people. Ironically this could have been the same place that another well known personality was sent to ie St Helena. I guess this would have suited the Tsar because by all accounts he wasn't very good at his job and much preferred the simple life. What better way then to end your days, growing potatoes on St Helena... It is certainly the case that Nicholas II was unpopular in Britain and the February Revolution was welcomed by many as having brought Russia into the fold of democratic Allies (UK, France, USA, Italy) facing reactionary militarists (Kaiser Bill, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans) - the Tsar had been a bit of an embarrassment in that respect. My recollection is that George V rather poured cold water on British plans to rescue the Tsar precisely because he did not think the association would be good for the House of Windsor but I daresay the Mail may be reporting new evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 21, 2018 22:06:12 GMT
It is certainly the case that Nicholas II was unpopular in Britain and the February Revolution was welcomed by many as having brought Russia into the fold of democratic Allies (UK, France, USA, Italy) facing reactionary militarists (Kaiser Bill, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans) - the Tsar had been a bit of an embarrassment in that respect. My recollection is that George V rather poured cold water on British plans to rescue the Tsar precisely because he did not think the association would be good for the House of Windsor but I daresay the Mail may be reporting new evidence to the contrary. The Mail story is hardly new, its been known for decades that George V had made a wanted to save his cousin. It was Tom Mangold and Anthony Summers in their book "The File on the Tsar" published in 1976 that first outlined the story. The authors came to the conclusion that maybe some of the family could have escaped, but they were careful not to treat this as a fact. After the fall of the Soviet Union of course the true fate of the family was confirmed much as the original post murder investigation of the events by the White government in Siberia had revealed. George V was burdened by this decision not to save the family for the rest of his life. Fascinating book which I read in the 70s - still got an old copy. Rather badly devalued by the authors insistence that the bodies of the Imperial family could not possibly have been disposed of in the manner of the official story, which seems to have been definitively debunked. But their main point on George V was that when the Tsar could have been fairly easily extracted (under the Provisional Government) it was the King who byboshed the idea, against the views of HMG; the supposed efforts to rescue the Tsar after the October Revolution were all a lot more shadowy and the main evidence of royal approval was nods and winks from Mountbatten. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
|
Post by slon on Jul 22, 2018 14:53:45 GMT
Would have bought Chelsea FC?
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 22, 2018 15:15:53 GMT
I see George V as a rather formal, stolid, boring man bullied by parents, and probably in thrall to his starchy wife. A man of timidity and indecision wracked by fear of terminal damage to the concept of monarchy and the Windsor brand, and even more by guilt in letting down his close relatives.
If the Romanovs had arrived I think they would have been placed at Osborne or Sandringham and asked to keep a low profile and not to impinge on the Windsor image. As time wore on and with perhaps one or two higher profile marriages I can see them being integrated into the family and to society at large. If the blood disorder led to further disabling effects and early deaths in would possibly attract sympathy?
And as the Soviet Union descended into a terror state they might have become more and more popular as living icons of resistance to un-Godly brutality and communistic example. In WW2 I can imagine they might be sent on to the USA or Canada and then during the Cold War be lauded as symbols of resistance anew.
He should have braced up to his funk and welcomed them here. I think it might have been a great success.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 22, 2018 15:28:48 GMT
I dare say that the Romanovs would have been moved on to another country. The Habsburgs ended up on Madeira, for example. I could imagine them turning up on Madeira, or somewhere Orthodox and friendly: Greece, the emerging Yugoslavia.
Or, maybe somewhere friendly and further away: Brazil, Canada, New Zealand.
Although given family connections: Denmark is a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 22, 2018 15:33:42 GMT
I dare say that the Romanovs would have been moved on to another country. The Habsburgs ended up on Madeira, for example. I could imagine them turning up on Madeira, or somewhere Orthodox and friendly: Greece, the emerging Yugoslavia. Or, maybe somewhere friendly and further away: Brazil, Canada, New Zealand. Although given family connections: Denmark is a possibility. Given future events it might have been wiser to stay in say, Peterborough, popping out every so often to sell another Faberge egg. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,762
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 22, 2018 16:40:39 GMT
If the Romanovs had arrived I think they would have been placed at Osborne or Sandringham ... We still had a Governor of the Isle of Wight back then, and the position was often filled with a surplus royal. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 22, 2018 17:06:29 GMT
If the Romanovs had arrived I think they would have been placed at Osborne or Sandringham ... We still had a Governor of the Isle of Wight back then, and the position was often filled with a surplus royal. I'm not sure it would have been easy (even for a Romanoff) to interrupt the forty eight year tenure (1896-1944) of Princess Beatrice. Astonishingly (to me at any rate) there was a governor right up until 1995. |
|
|
|
Post by raedwald on Jul 23, 2018 7:29:13 GMT
Another interesting implication of the Romanovs escaping to Britain:
In 1940, as the Nazis began to overrun the Low Countries, the former Kaiser Wilhelm was offered asylum by the British Government - he rejected, and died the following year. But if his cousin is also residing in Britain at the time, would Wilhelm be more willing to accept? Then, would Wilhelm and (after his death) his son establish German Governments-in-exile in opposition to the Nazi Government?
This scenario could see both a restoration of the Russian and German monarchies!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 7:54:15 GMT
Another interesting implication of the Romanovs escaping to Britain: In 1940, as the Nazis began to overrun the Low Countries, the former Kaiser Wilhelm was offered asylum by the British Government - he rejected, and died the following year. But if his cousin is also residing in Britain at the time, would Wilhelm be more willing to accept? Then, would Wilhelm and (after his death) his son establish German Governments-in-exile in opposition to the Nazi Government? This scenario could see both a restoration of the Russian and German monarchies! Strange to think Wilhelm was offered asylum while Nicholas was ultimately denied it, surely having the Kaiser in the country would be far less popular than the Tsar. |
|
|
|
Post by raedwald on Jul 23, 2018 8:02:14 GMT
Another interesting implication of the Romanovs escaping to Britain: In 1940, as the Nazis began to overrun the Low Countries, the former Kaiser Wilhelm was offered asylum by the British Government - he rejected, and died the following year. But if his cousin is also residing in Britain at the time, would Wilhelm be more willing to accept? Then, would Wilhelm and (after his death) his son establish German Governments-in-exile in opposition to the Nazi Government? This scenario could see both a restoration of the Russian and German monarchies! Strange to think Wilhelm was offered asylum while Nicholas was ultimately denied it, surely having the Kaiser in the country would be far more unpopular than the Tsar. Indeed, it is bizarre - whereas Nicholas II was a firm ally of Britain in wartime, Wilhelm II was a dangerous, unstable brute who had threatened to upstage the balance of power in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 23, 2018 8:02:59 GMT
Another interesting implication of the Romanovs escaping to Britain: In 1940, as the Nazis began to overrun the Low Countries, the former Kaiser Wilhelm was offered asylum by the British Government - he rejected, and died the following year. But if his cousin is also residing in Britain at the time, would Wilhelm be more willing to accept? Then, would Wilhelm and (after his death) his son establish German Governments-in-exile in opposition to the Nazi Government? This scenario could see both a restoration of the Russian and German monarchies! Strange to think Wilhelm was offered asylum while Nicholas was ultimately denied it, surely having the Kaiser in the country would be far more unpopular than the Tsar. Presumably it was an attempt at a propaganda coup on Churchill's part - "Nazis so extreme not even the Kaiser wants to live under their rule". What Britain would have done with him if he had accepted is anyone's guess. I like to think of him trying to open an account at the local Co-op : "Name?" "Hohenzollern" "How are you spelling that?" |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jul 23, 2018 8:08:55 GMT
I don’t think the German Hohenzollerns would’ve been restored. Memories of the Great War and therefore hatred of the Kaiser was still strong in the 1940’s. On top of that, I don’t think the Americans nor the Soviets would’ve ever allowed that as it would’ve been inimical to their very different anti imperialist, but rather imperialist😂, strategies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 8:39:27 GMT
Indeed, it is bizarre - whereas Nicholas II was a firm ally of Britain in wartime, Wilhelm II was a dangerous, unstable brute who had threatened to upstage the balance of power in Europe. Nicholas II (the bloody) was an autocrat, and a bad one at that, it was a good thing he and the monarchy were overthrown. Autocracy was a degenerate and fossilised system of government unfit for the 20th century. It is a good thing we did not actually give asylum to him or the Kaiser. Compared to those that followed him, Nicholas II was a moral ruler who genuinely cared about Russia - although he was misguided and poorly suited to ruling. |
|
