The Royals!

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi again,

With movies in mind, I have always thought that a film should be done about the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna - the grandest of the Grand Duchesses.....

Known in the family as "Aunt Meichen", she was a great hostess in St. Petersburg and supported the arts, architecture and science. She was a descendant of Catherine the Great and somewhat of the same character.

During WWI, she established hospitals across the country and even had her own train, with her crest embrazen on the coaches. She outran the Bolsheviks numerous times and even fled to the Urals, many miles away to outsmart them.
Sadly, she was starving from lack of nutrition herself and unwillingly left for the Crimea and freedom.
She was the last Romanov to leave Russia (in 1920) and sadly, the first to die in exile. She died 3 weeks after reaching France.
When she lighted from her ship in Marseilles, her children didn't even recognize her - this formidible & once glamourous woman was a white haired skeleton by then.


Funny story:
When Aunt Meichen's ship reached Constantinople, all on board were told they would have to attend a clinic and be deloused.
Aunt Meichen refused to have this indignity performed upon her and would not be deloused; she refused to leave the ship and ordered it to continue to Athens!!!

Now that's a Grand Duchess!!!!!!!!

Larry

P.S. - one of Maria Pavlovna's tiara's graces the head of Elizabeth II....

[JackFavell]

I think the Bolsheviks knew the crime was heinous, because they hid it from everyone. If they thought it had to be done, a sort of Machiavellian ritual of state, it would not have been so miserably handled, nor would it have been hidden from the world. One would think they would have been proud of it, like the murder of the ruling family in French Revolution. Perhaps they would have had more success had they put Nicholas and the family on trial for 'crimes against the people' . Not that they didn't have a good deal of success as it is.

Excuse me for sounding gruesome, or taking the opposing view, but when looked at from a purely logical standpoint of getting rid of ones enemies, a reasonable means of preventing anyone from stepping up to claim the throne or battle with the incoming rulers, this would have been a much better way of dealing with the situation. Killing little children and their dogs is not the way to start a new nation, unless one is a complete despot looking to others into submission through fear.

[moira finnie]

I think the Bolsheviks knew the crime was heinous, because they hid it from everyone. If they thought it had to be done, a sort of Machiavellian ritual of state, it would not have been so miserably handled, nor would it have been hidden from the world. One would think they would have been proud of it, like the murder of the ruling family in French Revolution. Perhaps they would have had more success had they put Nicholas and the family on trial for 'crimes against the people' . Not that they didn't have a good deal of success as it is.

Excuse me for sounding gruesome, or taking the opposing view, but when looked at from a purely logical standpoint of getting rid of ones enemies, a reasonable means of preventing anyone from stepping up to claim the throne or battle with the incoming rulers, this would have been a much better way of dealing with the situation. Killing little children and their dogs is not the way to start a new nation, unless one is a complete despot looking to others into submission through fear.

I agree with much of what you have written, JF, though I think there was a miscalculation in the Bolshies' comprehension of the power of imagery as the modern world was emerging, misunderstanding how their actions would be perceived, and unanticipated consequences. I have never been sure that there was really an organized effort to decapitate the royal family to prevent White Russian resurgence aka counter-revolutionaries. Maybe the people who were directly involved in this act only realized the repercussions of it afterward--millions of innocent people had already been slaughtered in the war and in the revolution, they figured. What difference did it make if a few more aristocrats were mowed down? The difference was that thanks to the emergence of the media the world felt that they "knew" the individuals in this family. People care about those they believe or actually "know." Hiding their brutal act afterward indicates shame and fear, which many of these convinced apparatchiks were probably not anticipating. Many of these rebels were shrewd, but many were also actually half-educated and inexperienced in the uses of power--in large part because the Czarist government was so closed to outsiders. I doubt they realized how their actions would be interpreted.

The murky history of the orders to commit this act makes it seem almost impulsive, perhaps the act of rebels trying to prove their toughness to one another, impressing internal opponents as well as external ones. Alexander Kerensky, a fairly reasonable man who was the head of the Provisional Government just after the revolution belonged to the Socialist Revolutionaries. He tried to get people to work together, but factions and classes were so polarized and distrustful of one another he never had a chance to form a lasting coalition government. Kerensky lacked the kind of ruthlessness that others felt was needed [Kerensky was one of the few revolutionaries who made it out alive. He actually wound up working in the college library in Berkeley for years, according to a professor I had in college who knew him there]. Well, any bunch who kill young girls, a handicapped child, their pets, their priest and maids as well were undoubtedly going to get the ruthless reputation they deserved.

If they had put the Czar on trial it might have won some respect outside of the USSR, and even if the Czar and Czarina had been executed, it may have been accepted eventually by the outside world. What made it different and even more monstrous were the children and their helpers who died without having committed any legitimate crime against the people other than being born.

Gee, next thing you know we'll be debating the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, Charles I and the Bourbons. You'll let me know when we can turn over our Blue Books and begin the exam, won't you, Teach?

[JackFavell]

Haha! I love history, and I'd love to talk about any of those subjects!

I've always thought Kerensky the best of the bunch, myself. His more moderate views and attempts to coalesce the various struggling factions into a whole make him seem more modern and sensitive than the other revolutionaries. But it's been some time since I did any reading on the subject. In my college days, I know I liked Trotsky better than Lenin, I remember that, but I have no idea why anymore.

I totally agree that the act of murder seems more like the work of out of control henchmen trying to top each other than a well thought out plan. And of course, men who have had nothing and no power at all might not use it wisely. That was the big mistake of the monarchy, holding the reins so tightly in fear that something like this might happen. It turns out that had Nicholas been a little more open, forward thinking and close to his people, the problems in his country might have been addressed in 1900-1908. There might never have been such complete tragedy on both sides.

I wonder if the actual perpetrators had built up so much hatred of the Czar and his families wealth and power that they just went mad? There are several accounts of the actual shooting that seem to go against that idea though, making it sound like a hurried, but fairly careful thing, done at the order of some unknowns....but of course the few describing the event might not be particularly accurate about it.

So does anyone know who actually commanded the execution? Yes, it probably was a ruthless act of bravado, as you say, but somehow, I always get the impression that it was done because someone got nervous. They were transported quickly, then held overnight, I believe (please correct me if I've got it wrong) and then the next night they were hurriedly brought into the room where they were killed, as if they had to be disposed of quickly... hence the well and the burned remains. Then again, they could have waited for some time before disposing of them, waiting for that higher up official to tell them what to do. It's hard to say what the actual timeline was, once they were dead. Pardon me for being so blunt.

[moira finnie]

So does anyone know who actually commanded the execution?

I'll have to dig out my Robert Massie books, but I do remember that the White Army (led by some Czechs) was nearing Ekaterinburg and a Commander or Commandant Yurovsky led the squad, telling individuals in it that they had to kill the czar since they were in danger of being overrun by the Whites who were---ironically--trying to rescue the royals.

I always thought the disposal of the bodies was done pretty rapidly (and sloppily, from most accounts). I doubt if the assassins wanted to be caught with the bodies if the White Army came over the hill in the next few hours.

[charliechaplinfan]

I love history too, I'll always join in.

My understanding of the massacre and this might now be disputed but I'm sure it wasn't ordered at high level. There was a great deal of confusion as to what to do with them once they were in custody but the decision was taken at a more local level. It wasn't a well formed organisation at this point and there would have been a lot of power struggles. I too like Kerensky, I remember Lenin being sold to us in high school history as some kind of hero, it's funny I don't see him at all that way these days. Neither do I think much of Nicholas II, he paid the price not only for his own rule but that of his forefathers, he didn't have the foresight or intelligence to deal with the dissent in his country, if he'd have been less shy, more ready to listen to his ministers or a more instinctive ruler perhaps things would have worked out differently for his family. When thinking of the Russian revolution it just makes me feel so sorry for the Russian people who seemed to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The massacre of the Imperial family is terrible but the suffering of Russia is something that no one could find a way out of for a long time.

I thought the bodies were disposed of rapidly and sloppily too.

[moira finnie]

How interesting that your school's curriculum presented Lenin in that light, Alison. My parochial school passed out Treasure Chest comic books portraying the Soviets as raising children in pens like cattle. I don't remember them mentioning Vlad, they did have cartoon versions of Nikita!

When I had a chance to study more realistic depictions of the Soviets, I always thought that part of the reason Lenin became radicalized instead of the intelligent and productive professional in Russian society that he might have been was directly related to a Czar's stupidity and short-sightedness. In 1887 when Lenin was 17, his eldest brother Alexander was hung for his role in a plot to bomb Tsar Alexander III and his sister Anna was banished to their family's remote village. If only someone in power had taken a chance and brought educated young people into the government, they might not have been so frustrated that the most appealing philosophical response to life was bomb tossing, anarchy, and, in the impressionable and understandably bitter Lenin's case, Bolshevism. He got the power, but not much insight into how to help people live like human beings.

I agree about the Russian people, especially all that they have been through in the last 100 years. They have endured far too much.

[charliechaplinfan]

I think I had a dreadful history teacher, I remember being taught that Stalin only did the bad things he did for the good of the country without going into details about the purges etc. I don't think she understood, although the rest of the history she taught us was correct. Thankfully my interest lasted long beyond school, her view of Lenin and Stalin wasn't the shared view in this country but I don't think that Stalin's atrocities had been fully uncovered by this time, I remember there being lots of discoveries of fresh graves at the end of 80s and leaking of news but enough was known to put him in the monster category.

It is a pity in Lenin that the Russian people didn't find the saviour it deserved but am I right in thinking that he wasn't as vilified until the very later part of the 20th century, that it was too easy to lay much of the blame at Stalin's door and only recently have historian's been reinvestigating Lenin's role in what happened in Russia? Perhaps it was easier cleaner to lay the blame at one door, especially after Lenin had a stroke early on in his reign that to admit that this man also betrayed his people.

[Rita Hayworth]

It is a pity in Lenin that the Russian people didn't find the saviour it deserved but am I right in thinking that he wasn't as vilified until the very later part of the 20th century, that it was too easy to lay much of the blame at Stalin's door and only recently have historian's been reinvestigating Lenin's role in what happened in Russia? Perhaps it was easier cleaner to lay the blame at one door, especially after Lenin had a stroke early on in his reign that to admit that this man also betrayed his people.

History would be dramatically changed if Lenin had not died early in his reign ... he could had kept Stalin in check. That's my views on Lenin ... because he's more people oriented than dictatorial oriented like Stalin.

[charliechaplinfan]

When I was trying to type last night the words just weren't flowing, the phone kept going, the kids weren't settling and I knew what I wanted to say but it was difficult after all the interuptions to get the words out.

I've loved history all my life but history taught at school can be brilliant or it can be awful depending on which teacher is teaching you. When I studied for my O levels which were the qualifications that ended my school life, the syllabus was European history from 1870 until 1939, such a fascinating period and such a bad teacher. She was so dry and dictated so much from text books (such bad teaching) thankfully she got the rest of the history right, it was only Russia she was wrong about amd perhaps it was a result of her opinion not having being corrected since her own education some 20 odd years before. Lenin was some kind of saviour to the Russian people and the Czar was misguided, not a bad man but bad for his people. Stalin was a man of the people, he came up from the poorest and manipulated by his sheer administrative capacity to get himself in a powerful position and in the end he was the right person. Stalin did have a bad name because I remember asking my Dad and being told he was a bad man but she taught it that he was only bad because it was necessary. Thankfully, history continued to be a fascination of mine past schol days and I soon realised that this view was not the right one. It took me longer to pick up on the fact that Lenin was a saviour. The whole subject of Russia is so complex and diverse, I find it both fascinating and disturbing. Even the works of literature can go from great despair to sheer beauty. I will always remain fascinated and disturbed and will never totally understand.

[JackFavell]

I feel the same way, Alison. You are so right, it is disturbing.

The same man can be a saviour and a monster at the same time. No one in Russian history seems to be all one or the other, but a combination of both. Maybe Peter the Great or Catherine are exempt from this icky dichotomy of human nature, but probably not.

Nicholas was not a bad man, but so deluded by years of power in his family that he caused endless sufferings amongst his people. Then Lenin, the revolutionary who saved the people, but also I believe took control of the so called people's government, and started the camps and prison system that Stalin then went on to fill to capacity and empty by killing any who disagreed with him.

[charliechaplinfan]

There's certain events in history that have ravaged such destruction that each time I revisit it I get the same swell of disbelief at how much bloodshed can be had over so short a time and caused by one man, Stalin is such a man so that the men who went before completely pale in comparison, I think Lenin's role was neglected for many years and the failure of Russian communism put at Stalin's door, there goes my teacher again. I wonder if the definitive account will ever be written, how many secrets are still hidden?

[JackFavell]

I'm none too sure that we'll ever know everything.

But then, even with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor there are varying accounts! Or FDR, JFK or LBJ!

[charliechaplinfan]

I'm not as well versed on the Americans, possibly Kennedy and there are plenty of threads of opinions there.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor reminds me of another of my teachers views. At the time we were studying O Level history Wallis died, I remember my Grandma hated her, like so many of her generation, I think only Hitler was further up on their hit list, she seemed to carry all the blame with my Grandma's generation, perhaps because David/Edward VIII had been so popular, a real poster boy, a hope and of course they knew nothing of the man in private. There's a line of thinking these days, maybe it's just the fashionable opinion that Wallis only wanted the cachet of an affair with the POW but David fell hard and wolud not be discouraged and when he sacrificed his throne for her he completely cut off her options, the only option was to marry him and live in opulence and boredom. By some accounts she treated him dreadfully. I don't have any sympathy for him, but a little for her. Of course we now know that George VI was the best thing for the UK, not everyone thought so at the time.

My great uncle had met the Prince of Wales, he used to work somewhere in the Midlands near one of the country houses that the POW used to frequent, he said he was a horrible little man, of course he told me that in the 1980s, perhaps his opinion somewhat coloured by time.

Did anyone watch Madonna's directorial debut entitled WE?

[JackFavell]

I had no idea she had decided to direct. Who knows, she may be good!

I do feel sorry for both Wallis and teh POW, but am very happy the chips fell the way they did. I do believe David would have been an awful king, who would have had to be taken care of or dealt with at some point or other anyway, due to his dreadful political beliefs and foolish actions. Still can't help feeling how sad they seem in later photos. I would hate to have to pay for a rash decision, or even a well thought out one, for the rest of my life, and in public.