They could have been saved by George V you know. It's rather sad.
I do not believe that could have been done without extreme difficulty. Had George allowed them asylum in England, then there would possibly have been an outcry by his own people against him. He was not completely stable on his own throne, (virtually every throne in Europe was the same, many being toppled as a result) so why would he possibly risk his life or position, and that of his own immediate family's, for that of more distant family members? It must be remembered that anti-German feeling was so strong in the country at the time that George felt obliged to change the family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to a stable English name - Windsor. It would not have been a good example for George to have protected a fallen former absolute ruler in his (George's) country that had long ago become more democratic.
I think had Nicholas and Alix and their children survived longer, they would have been able to go to Britain, like the rest of their family did later, when the furor had died down. I don't believe it would have been wise for George to have invited them earlier. He and his advisors clearly realized this, and prevented the Imperial Family from taking refuge in England. When the war was over, however, and the world more stable, the remaining Romanovs
were allowed into the country. I think that simple fact explains the reason why the decision could not have been made earlier. If George was so cold-hearted as has been said by many, then why did he allow the rest of the family to take refuge in his country after the war? Politics were clearly in the way up until that point.
I think it's unfair to blame George for the fate of his relatives. What, did they not have their own minds? Nicholas had many opportunities to change his ways, and get back the love and support of his people, but did nothing, especially to lessen his absolute power. The Revolution of 1905 should have been the wake-up call, but obviously it wasn't to Nicholas, so that has nothing at all to do with George, who made a good effort as a ruler when he came to the throne.
I'm not saying Nicholas was a bad person (I actually think he was a good man who was born into the wrong position), I'm just saying he must ultimately be held accountable for his own fate, as tragic as it is, because his own decisions led him there. George shouldn't be faulted for not getting Nicholas out of his own trouble.
OK... I'm finished rambling now. I think I've made my point.
And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. ~ Anne Boleyn
reply
share