Their Physician as also in the mass grave, was he not?
Yes.
Guin, do you think they were a bunch of thugs who enjoyed killing and mutilating the bodies, or a bunch of guys scared to death they would get caught?
Nothing to do with the regime? They were 2nd-5th in the line of succession, after their brother Alexi – that certainly seems ‘connected’.
And it only seems reasonable, if you believe ‘all comrades are equal’ and are opposed to the very idea of royalty to make sure that the whole family is killed, including all the heirs of child-bearing age. Otherwise you leave a rallying point for the royalist opposition, with possible czars-in-exile to contend with. Much better to do as the Bible says: “wipe out my enemies and destroy all who torment me”. (Ps 143).
No they were not. After Alexei, as I said, it was Nicholas’s brother, Michael who the heir presumptive.
Women could not inherit the throne in Russia. The law was very strict on this. (I’m NOT saying that this wouldn’t be a possibility in an “emergency situation”, mind you)
Just curious - how did Catherine the Great get her reign? Not doubting you - just curious what changed.
By overthrowing her husband. 
Prior to that, the monarch could choose his or her own heir (Peter the Great’s idea).
HOWEVER, Catherine’s SON, Paul, changed the law, so that women could not inherit the throne, unless there were no eligible males whatsoever. It was called the Pauline Law. (Paul hated his mother and wanted to make sure that only male Romanovs could inherit the throne)
Off-topic, but now that Paul has entered into the discussion, the Soviet film Lieutenant Kije is viewable online, with Prokofiev’s score.
Also, understand that the Tsarvitch Alexei suffered from a blood clotting disorder (Spanish princes had it, and one of Victoria’s sons) so removing him from his parents was not a solution. You have a child with a life threatening illness, you keep him close by.
Alexei’s older sisters were not old enough to assume responsibility for him, even if Alexandra and Nicholas were willing to send him off. So, the family stayed together.
Yes. In his 2002 book Monarch, which I just finished, Robert Lacey praises Kenneth Rose’s biography King George V as “definitive” and quotes it with approval. Lord Stamfordham, the King’s private secretary, wrote to then-Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in April 1917, “He [the King] must beg you to represent to the Prime Minister that from all he hears and read in the press, the residence in this country of the Ex-Emperor and Empress [of Russia] would be strongly resented by the public, and would undoubtedly compromise the position of the King and Queen.”
The PM, Lloyd George, was actually “reluctant… to do as the king wanted.” Balfour and others nevertheless looked into finding asylum for Nicholas and Alexandra in Spain or the south of France, but “from that moment the plans… ran into diplomatic quicksand,” and the Russian royal family never got out of the country. They, their doctor, valet, cook, parlour-maid and dog were all killed by the Bolsheviks in July 1918.
Anastasia’s dog wasn’t a collie, was it?
“Run, Lassie! Go get help!”
Ah- but the dog was really a plant. It was a red setter.
Check out the stories of any royal or noble families throughout history. Betrayal, poisoning, cuckoldry & outright warfare abound!
I remember reading about the family in some little Italian kingdom; at one point the uncle wanted the throne; when most of the rest of the family was in the great hall of the palace, his henchmen locked the doors and then they slaughtered them from the balcony or somewhere. Blood runs a distant third to power and wealth.
Also - a lot of the interesting activities of Henry VIII were to ensure he had a firm grip on the throne. His father had just won a bloody civil war with an incredibly tenuous claim to the throne. Henry would make a point of ensuring that anyone with even a remote family tie to the Plataganets could not challenge him.
When James II left for France, it meant more generations of pretenders to rally discontent, create revolution, and almost overthrow the British government.
This is probably the sort of history the Bolsheviks looked at - letting the royal family go would mean someone who could be a figurehead to rally opposition, whether they wanted the throne or not.
Well, they didn’t do a very good job. There were still a stack of Romonovs out there.
I think the decision was based a lot on the concept that the White Russians could still have won the war. Afterwards, there was no way that a Romonov could gain power while Lenin and Stalin had their grip.
Yes and no. The line of succession was set by the Tsar, as Autocrat. Women could inherit and in fact had inherited: two Catherines, Anna, and Elizabeth, among others. Catherine II’s son Paul had plugged in the male-primogeniture-only law about 130 years before, but it was Nicholas’s prerogative to override it and, if Alexei had died, make his eldest daughter heiress if he had so chosen. (He didn’t, but my point is that he could have, and it would have been as ‘constitutional’ as the shifts in succession law during the complex dynastic shifts of the 18th century.)
That certainly would have changed things.
He could also have arranged for a private firm to spirit them away, if he wanted to avoid the taint of government involvement. I’m sure any discreet, reputable international business would have been able to get them on a boat.
And we all know that such a Tsar-ship enterprise would have saved the day.
Shame on you.
:rolleyes: