In “Briefly Noted” in The New Yorker edition of April 19, they claim that George V denied asylum to the Czar, who then of course was shot up by Bolshies.
Is this true? Why would he not help is relative and ally? I never heard this one.
*The Tsar’s death, after George denied him asylum, was “a final blow to the cult of family which his queen empress grandmother had so heartily embraced.
*
Because by 1917 the czar was a fairly unpopular figure in Britain and George feared that granting him asylum would stir up anti-monarchist and revolutionary sentiment. Granted it probably wouldn’t have caused him to loose his throne, but it still would have created a pretty big uproar, not something he wanted to deal with while World War I was raging. And he probably didn’t think the Russian revolutionaries would actually kill the imperial family.
Still, I’ve always wondered why he couldn’t have compromised by offering him asylum in some far off British possession instead be it India, Kenya or even Hong Kong, where Nicholas would be safe but at arm’s length from the home island.
I’m interested to know too, after seeing the film Nicholas and Alexandra, which suggested that Britain would not be interested in hosting an ally who surrendered to an enemy.
The British paper The Express suggests that;
George didn’t let him in because he didn’t like not being the original.
Yes, from all the research I’ve done on this (Nicholas and Alexandra used to be sort of an obsession of mine), it’s true.
From The Last Tsar by Edward Radzinsky: "Immediately after the tsar’s arrest the British ambassador warned the Provisional Government that every measure must be taken to ensure the family’s safety. The Provisional Government readily entered into talks with George’s government about their departure for England. Agreement was reached in a few days. After the arrest, they informed the British ambassador on March 23. … That was in March, and it was already July–and they were still at Tsarkoe Selo. Why?
"Subsequently British Prime Minister Lloyd George would blame the PG for being unable to overcome the resistance of the Petrograd Soviet. But there is another point of view: ‘Prime Minister Lloyd George himself advised King George to decline the Romanovs’ arrival in order to buy popularity among leftist England at the price of his own relatives’ lives.’ For from the very beginning of the revolution Russian society had pronounced an implicit sentence on the tsar’s family. … So all these talks were just a game–a game of good intentions for the purpose of salving consciences.
“‘We sincerely hope that the English government does not have any intention of providing a haven for the tsar and his wife . . . This would profoundly and justly hurt the feelings of the Russians, who have been forced to bring about a great revolution because of being constantly betrayed to our present enemies,’ wrote the Daily Telegraph at the time.” (pp 204-205)
Wow, I’m not a history buff, so my basic knowledge has nothing to contribute, but…
All the above quotes make me feel sorry for Czar Nick. His own family betrayed him 
Family members couldn’t help but betray other members. The grandchildren of Queen Victoria ruled Russia, England, Germany, and…What am I leaving out?
I think even the Czar and Czarina were cousins – just as Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II are.
Well, wasn’t the whole point of intermarriage and spreading the dynasty to avoid betrayal, warfare, and other such unpleasantries? Sorry if this is too big a hijack…
Nicholas had nothing to do with the surrender. Russia was still fighting when he abdicated in March 1917. The provisional Kerensky government also continued to nominally keep fighting until it was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in October 1917. It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who finally quit the war in March 1918.
It’s hard for us to imagine it now but there was a genuine fear of revolution amongst royal circles in England at the time - let’s not forget that George was already desperately trying to disguise his German roots by changing the family name to Windsor. Looking back their fears may have been unjustified, but we’ll never know. However, they didn’t want to be seen to be favouring vastly unpopular foreign royalty against the will of the Russian people, given how the British people might view their priorities. Trapped in an awful world war against cousin Kaiser Bill, the monarchy were desperate to be seen as loyal to the British people, and ONLY the British people.
Some people here are shocked that they didn’t come to the defense of their family. I imagine Monarchies have always had a conflict between Family and State, given all the afore mentioned intermarriage. I don’t think we can judge them against our ‘own’ views of family.
I’m not sure about the will of the Russian people. If that bit had been true they would not have sent troops to fight the Bolshies after the end of the Great War.
Was it even George’s decision to make? Would Lloyd George have followed the King’s wishes if George had desired giving asylum to the Tsar?
That it was George V who dissuaded Lloyd George from offering asylum, not the other way round, has been generally accepted ever since Kenneth Rose first published the evidence in his biography of the king in 1983.
Ah, OK. Thanks.
Had Wilhelm agreed to allow free passage for an English vessel to bring the Romanovs to Britain?
After the Jutland, it wasn’t Willy’s decision.
Probably not but it wouldn’t have been needed. The Czar could have left the country through Scandinavia, Romania, or Persia or left by a northern or eastern port.
The “epic” film “Nicholas and Alexandra” does a good job of painting them in a sympathetic light in the end, once they’ve been stripped of their powers.
:smack:
As the film I had watched clearly pointed out, thanks.
george felt that he was in a tough position. remember things started off with an assasination, and royalty were being drummed out all over europe. he had taken in some of the greek royals by the time russia started going downhill.
the one thing i never understood was why he didn’t get the kids out. i don’t think there would have been a backlash against the 4 and aleksai. also where was scandinavia? nick’s mum was a princess of denmark, they couldn’t get the kids out through scandinavia? or even to alaska?
i’ve wondered for quite a few years now, how did george look in a mirror after hearing of the romanov’s deaths? he had to see his cousin’s face every time he saw a reflection…
