• Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
  • Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
    This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.

If George V had given succour to the Russian royal family

This is the place to discuss the past, its study, and those who study it. Discussion about events that happened less than twenty years ago should go go in Politics instead.
Post Reply
User avatar
DMB
Posts: 41484
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Mostly Switzerland

If George V had given succour to the Russian royal family

Post by DMB » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:16 pm

It is well known that his reason for refusing to do so was because of the fear of a corresponding revolution in Britain. Was he right? What would have happened if they had been given asylum in Britain?

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:49 pm

I'm a big fan of AH in Science fiction. I seriously doubt it would have caused a revolution in the UK. It probably wouldn't have changed history much, other than they'd have lived and would have living descendants. There is the possibility at some point they'd have attempted, possibly successfully, to reclaim the throne (there could have been a counter-revolution had they lived - that's exactly what the bolsheviks were afraid of and why they had them killed.) After the Soviet Union was established it's extremely unlikely they could have had it overthrown. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it's possible one of the descendants could have been named Czar - more than likely as a mainly ceremonial role like in the UK and Japan. Of course seeing what's happened with Putin, it's also possible after Yeltsin people wanting an authoritarian ruler they could have given back the powers they had before the revolution (not quite absolutist, but still ruling.)

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:07 pm

I suspect that had he, then eighty years later there would have been some inbred idiot claiming that his family owned half of Russia and everybody else should kiss his ass and hand over the reigns.

I still tend to sympathize with Denis Diderot: "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
JamesBannon
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:39 am
Location: Barrhead, Scotland

Post by JamesBannon » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:03 pm

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]I suspect that had he, then eighty years later there would have been some inbred idiot claiming that his family owned half of Russia and everybody else should kiss his ass and hand over the reigns.

I still tend to sympathize with Denis Diderot: "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."[/quote]

Well, that's one way of putting it :D Not a big fan of royalty myself.
There you go with them negative waves ... Why can't you say something righteous and beautiful for a change? :grouphug:

User avatar
DMB
Posts: 41484
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Mostly Switzerland

Post by DMB » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:01 am

Image

This is Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna who claims to be the heir to the throne. She couldn't be Queen but could transmit the throne to her son (male heir needed).

However, a majority of Romanov descendants don't recognise her claim. See (Wikipedia)Romanov Family Association.

The main issue seems to be whether they had two fully royal parents. Maria's mother is not recognised as royal by the Family Association, but her father unilaterally declared her royal when he married her. It all seems a bit pointless to me. The British royal family can marry non-royals and they become royal by marriage, but most Continental royal families attach tremendous importance to the (Wikipedia)Almanach de Gotha. Most of them are no longer ruling families and you can count as royal if you are descended from the ruler of a teeny German statelet as long as all the marriages that led to you are recognised in Gotha.

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:48 am

[quote=""DMB""] She couldn't be Queen but could transmit the throne to her son (male heir needed).

[/quote]

Really? So how did Catherine the Great reign?

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:52 am

[quote=""MattShizzle""]
DMB;669416 wrote: She couldn't be Queen but could transmit the throne to her son (male heir needed).
Really? So how did Catherine the Great reign?[/QUOTE]

She was not an heir of any kind, and her rise to power constituted a coup d'etat against her own husband, who then died at the hands of an assassin. She really had no claim by right or blood, but she was already Empress Consort, refused to stop, and unlike Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, she had the army on her side as well as most of the nobility. Technically she was a "regent" and supposed to eventually hand things over to her son, who was an heir of the blood, but she wasn't the kind of person people could say no to. Again, army.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

dancer_rnb
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:38 pm

Post by dancer_rnb » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:08 am

There was also an Emperess Elizabeth. Daughter od Peter the Great.
:d unno:
There is no such thing as "politically correct." It's code for liberalism. The whole idea of "political correctness" was a brief academic flash-in-the-pan in the early 1990's, but has been a good conservative bugaboo ever since.

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:36 am

[quote=""dancer_rnb""]There was also an Emperess Elizabeth. Daughter od Peter the Great.
:d unno:[/quote]
Who was also an coup d'etat-installed supposed Empress Regent with an big army and noble support. Russians clearly go in for that sort of thing, and I'm certain that should Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna acquire the loyalty of the army, sneak into the capital by night and "disappear" Putin, she would enjoy similar success in public reputation.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Samnell
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:45 am
Location: Northeastern Lower Michigan, USA

Post by Samnell » Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:21 pm

[quote=""DMB""]It is well known that his reason for refusing to do so was because of the fear of a corresponding revolution in Britain. Was he right? What would have happened if they had been given asylum in Britain?[/quote]

Probably not much for them or Russia. It's possible that there would have been some Spanish-style restoration or a re-entry into politics by democratic means, like Bulgaria had, but most long term ousted royals are just done and go on to customarily parasitic lives of the rich and pampered. Nice for them -and the Windsors clearly do well enough with it- but nothing world-shaking. I'd expect rather less from a surviving, plausible Romanov pretender than from Otto Habsburg.
I have a blog about nineteenth century America. It's theoretically educational!

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:06 pm

What's weird here is the neutering and demise of monarchy over much of the world over the last two centuries. Over all of humanity's previous recorded history, just about every nation or polity larger than a city-state was ruled by a monarch. Some of these monarchies were very long-lasting, even if not quite continuous, like the Pharaonic and Chinese ones. The biggest exception, I think, was the Roman Republic, but it famously turned into a monarchy, the Roman Empire. But something changed, especially over the last century (Monarchy in the 20th Century).

With a little research, it's easy to describe what happened. But why it happened is something that I've been unable to discover.

Though many monarchies have fallen, including some very long-lived ones, a few survive, at least half of them mostly ceremonial ones, and two have been restored: Spain's and Cambodia's. A few de facto monarchies have also emerged, notably in North Korea.

I've seen the theory that monarchy originated out of the "crown prince problem", of a leader's son being one who is not likely to be too eager to get the job. Also from lack of an institutional framework independent of the particular leaders, like representative democracy or a one-party state.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:26 am

[quote=""lpetrich""]What's weird here is the neutering and demise of monarchy over much of the world over the last two centuries. Over all of humanity's previous recorded history, just about every nation or polity larger than a city-state was ruled by a monarch. Some of these monarchies were very long-lasting, even if not quite continuous, like the Pharaonic and Chinese ones. The biggest exception, I think, was the Roman Republic, but it famously turned into a monarchy, the Roman Empire. But something changed, especially over the last century (Monarchy in the 20th Century).

With a little research, it's easy to describe what happened. But why it happened is something that I've been unable to discover.[/quote]
It's the economic seachange that dunnit. Marx / Engels were right. The agrarian was supplanted by the capitalist economy. Rule by divine right had no place for it. It had to make way for factory owners.

Karl Marx on the transition from feudalism to capitalism .pdf

Ajay0
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:27 am

Post by Ajay0 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:04 am

[quote=""DMB""]It is well known that his reason for refusing to do so was because of the fear of a corresponding revolution in Britain. Was he right? What would have happened if they had been given asylum in Britain?[/quote]

It is considered to be a aristocratic virtue to give refuge to the helpless.

If George V had given succour to the Russian royal family he would have gained in prestige and grace ,imo.

Britain generously granted refuge to many French aristocrats fleeing the French Revolution even though they were old rivals, and gained their loyalty in return. So there is a precedent in this regard.

The presence of the Russian royalty in Britain would also have denied the communist government in Russia credibility and substance. They would have been simply seen as temporary usurpers.

Here I must state my belief that it is Napoleon's invasion of Russia and Moscow that laid the seeds for the Russian revolution later on. It helped to spread the ideas of the French Revolution in Russia and even the warlike cossacks were in awe of Napoleon.
Self-awareness is yoga. - Nisargadatta Maharaj

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. - Eckhart Tolle

User avatar
DMB
Posts: 41484
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Mostly Switzerland

Post by DMB » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:49 am

Britain did receive a lot of the extended Romanov family as well as the aristocracy and many other refugees lower down the social scale. I think the problem was that Nicholas II and Alexandra were deeply unpopular and were felt to have brought their troubles on themselves. Of course, I don't suppose it was expected that all the children would be killed as well.

The Tsar's mother was the sister of Britain's Dowager Queen Alexandra. The king sent to battleship to rescue her and she came and stayed for quite a while with her sister. She refused to believe that her son was dead.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:52 am

[quote=""Ajay0""]
DMB;669401 wrote:It is well known that his reason for refusing to do so was because of the fear of a corresponding revolution in Britain. Was he right? What would have happened if they had been given asylum in Britain?
It is considered to be a aristocratic virtue to give refuge to the helpless.[/QUOTE]Unless the potential refuge giver is British and the Tsarina is German at a time German and British soldiers have been killing each other on behalf of their bosses to the tune of several thousand a day for the past three years. There comes a time when imagined ideals concerning class solidarity give way to real-world conditions.

User avatar
DMB
Posts: 41484
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Mostly Switzerland

Post by DMB » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:03 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Ajay0;669574 wrote:
DMB;669401 wrote:It is well known that his reason for refusing to do so was because of the fear of a corresponding revolution in Britain. Was he right? What would have happened if they had been given asylum in Britain?
It is considered to be a aristocratic virtue to give refuge to the helpless.
Unless the potential refuge giver is British and the Tsarina is German at a time German and British soldiers have been killing each other on behalf of their bosses to the tune of several thousand a day for the past three years. There comes a time when imagined ideals concerning class solidarity give way to real-world conditions.[/QUOTE]

Umm, but Russia and Britain had been allies against Germany and both the Tsar and the Tsarina were cousins of George V (His mother was a sister of George's mother and her mother was a sister of George's father.) Mind you, everyone in the extended family had thought that Alexandra was a poor choice of bride for Nicholas. Another factor was that the British royal family for a long time had thought that the autocracy of Alexander III and Nicholas II was a mistake, so that the Russian royal family were thought to have brought misfortune on themselves, whereas the British royal family had allowed the move towards a constitutional monarchy. (But Alexander had re-imposed autocracy in reaction to the assassination of his father.)

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:44 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
lpetrich;669534 wrote:With a little research, it's easy to describe what happened. But why it happened is something that I've been unable to discover.
It's the economic seachange that dunnit. Marx / Engels were right. The agrarian was supplanted by the capitalist economy. Rule by divine right had no place for it. It had to make way for factory owners.

Karl Marx on the transition from feudalism to capitalism .pdf[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it follows. That article nowhere discusses the decline of monarchy and the rise of republican and quasi-republican government. I say quasi-republican for nominal monarchies that act like republics, like the UK.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:53 pm

[quote=""lpetrich""]
Hermit;669564 wrote:
lpetrich;669534 wrote:With a little research, it's easy to describe what happened. But why it happened is something that I've been unable to discover.
It's the economic seachange that dunnit. Marx / Engels were right. The agrarian was supplanted by the capitalist economy. Rule by divine right had no place for it. It had to make way for factory owners.

Karl Marx on the transition from feudalism to capitalism .pdf
I don't see how it follows. That article nowhere discusses the decline of monarchy and the rise of republican and quasi-republican government. I say quasi-republican for nominal monarchies that act like republics, like the UK.[/QUOTE]
If you view monarchies as the pinnacles of feudal economies, their demise is easily seen as the result of being supplanted by capitalism.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:12 pm

Only if one believes in Marxist class analyses, and I consider them doubtful at best.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:33 pm

[quote=""lpetrich""]Only if one believes in Marxist class analyses, and I consider them doubtful at best.[/quote]Marxism is not based on class analysis. It is based on the analysis of economic systems. The concept of classes arise from them rather than being the foundation of Marxism.

While I regard Marx's political program as somewhat infantile, overly simplistic, naïve and bound to result in the disasters we have seen since about 1922, I think his analysis of political economy is quite on the money, so to speak.

Post Reply