case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2014-12-08 06:53 pm

[ SECRET POST #2897 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2897 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 041 secrets from Secret Submission Post #414.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 12:36 am (UTC)(link)
I think you're oversimplifying the political consequences that would have had for the rest of Europe. Not to mention that Europe was still in a mess after WWI. Britain had just lost millions of young men in that conflict, they sure as hell couldn't have afforded more losses in a war with Russia.

Yes, it was a tragedy. No, you can't just lay the blame at other people's feet.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:01 am (UTC)(link)
Earlier on, before the royal family was taken away, the new Russian government was in fact open to releasing the royal family (it would have been a lot better for their PR than shooting them in the middle of the night). No one wanted to take them.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:03 am (UTC)(link)
Apologies, I didn't know that. That's pretty fucked up. I wonder what their reasoning was? Fear of inciting similar revolutions in their own countries? Hmm.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:14 am (UTC)(link)
Well, tbf, taking in the Romanovs would be a risky endeavor because the country that harbored them might get into political troubles if the family was demanded back by say, the Bolsheviks (the government that was in power for a short time before the Bolsheviks took over were waaaay less crazy). The family would be targeted for assassination, and Russia has always wielded a lot of political might due to its many natural resources.

However I do think the UK was strong enough to say, "No, you can't have them back, they're family" without inciting a war (as opposed to saying "we can't let you spill Royal Blood" or something like that). Russia had a lot of other shit to deal with themselves.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:25 am (UTC)(link)
More like the UK authorities would be saying, "sorry comrades, we can't let you have them back because we shot them here with our own bourgeois royals. We can let you have some dirt from their graves if you want though". Because the UK authorities in that situation might very well have been the UK's own post-revolutionary government. It almost happened here too.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 07:22 pm (UTC)(link)
David Lloyd George offered the Romanovs asylum in Britain, but George V wouldn't allow it. He was very wet and self protective, compared to his Russian and German cousins, his approach started the modern way of being a monarch, where his cousins were absolute rulers as it were.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:16 am (UTC)(link)
da

I didn't know that either, but I don't get it. Why would they have released the royal family? That doesn't seem to make sense, considering they were trying to overthrow them. I'm no Russian historian, I just can't understand how it could've ended any other way than them being murdered, or rescued/escaped. The daughters POSSIBLY since they couldn't inherit the throne, but they still represent the monarchy too directly. Not that I'm saying you're lying, I'm only confused.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:29 am (UTC)(link)
Not to mention that history had shown that releasing deposed monarchs often ended with them or their descendants actively seeking to reclaim the throne and reignite war. Its only in our modern age that monarchs have willingly surrendered power and accepted being deposed, and that is mainly because of what happened to Nicholas and his family. They'd be a focus for counter-revolutionaries of all kinds.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:49 am (UTC)(link)
That's what I thought. Maybe I've just read too many fantasy novels. But seems like as long as they were alive, they could have been a threat to the new government. These days, at least, there's more of a precedent for a monarch to just be a symbol, but Nicholas had some real power.
othellia: (Default)

[personal profile] othellia 2014-12-09 01:29 am (UTC)(link)
Eh, Iran's imperial family got out okay when they were overthrown in the 1970s. I think most of them live here in the US now.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 02:14 am (UTC)(link)
Simply for good PR. I mean, the provisional government after the Revolution was a democratic republic. As my mother puts it, if Russia had just stopped there it would have saved the whole country from a century of awful. The Royals, particularly the girls, were world-renowned. I'm in the midst of a book that compares them to Princess Diana. Widely photographed, admired, romanticized. To do something as heinous as to shoot these children or rip them away from their notoriously loving parents would have been a huge blow to the new country's image. Mercy was what they could have shown and been respected for it.

Unfortunately the Bolsheviks came in and their view was more in line with getting the world to respect them by being as ruthless as possible.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 02:25 am (UTC)(link)
That is a very modern view to take.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 04:43 am (UTC)(link)
Strictly speaking, 100 years isn't that long ago. I mean, I find it difficult to look at the Romanov photos because they just seem so real and human, making faces for the camera half the time. When they died the world had photographs and telegraphs, suffragettes, corporations, airplanes, etc. A lot of stuff that we'd consider pretty modern.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 02:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Recognizable technology /=modern attitudes or social conventions.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-10 02:44 am (UTC)(link)
Modern attitudes and social conventions didn't spring out of thin air without a lot of ground work laid in the generations that came before. It may not have been universally accepted or even widely known, but they were there.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
NAYRT

I just read an amazing and sad book about the Romanovs, The Last Days of the Romanovs, and there was a lot of talk about getting the girls out. In fact, they denied for a while that they were dead. When they buried them, one of the girls and the little boy were put in a separate grave in order to try to disguise that they had killed the whole family. There was a lot of discussion of getting the girls out, at the very least, but the family wanted to be together and didn't know how it would all end for them.

Just thinking about the horrible way they were murdered makes me want to vomit. I mean, I'd heard that it was a firing squad, but I had no idea of the actual horror that went on that night.

Here are some pictures of the family while they were still alive. http://news.discovery.com/history/the-romanovs-as-never-seen-before-130513.htm
ceebeegee: (Default)

[personal profile] ceebeegee 2014-12-09 04:07 am (UTC)(link)
So, so awful. Put down like rabid dogs in the middle of the night--literally bayoneted--and then dumped into a muddy hole. Those lovely girls and that sweet-faced boy. And the maid! What the hell had SHE ever done? And the dog too. Animals, all of those murderers. When ideology becomes pathology. Just awful.
straightforwardly: a black & white cat twining around a girl's legs; both are outside. (Default)

[personal profile] straightforwardly 2014-12-09 04:08 am (UTC)(link)
...considering they were trying to overthrow them.

This is a bit nitpicky, but, technically, Nicholas II had already abdicated a bit over a year before he and his family were killed.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 09:30 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, with the idea his great uncle or something (some Duke) was going to take the throne, but the Duke pulled out after he abdicated, which fucked everything up. Oh, and it was the nobles that told him to abdicate, not the poor oppressed working class.

(Anonymous) 2014-12-09 01:21 am (UTC)(link)
Because there was a real and justifiable fear, that with so many young men being slaughtered pointlessly in war, that offering sanctuary to one of the Royal families who sparked the whole thing off might just be the match necessary to light Britain's own revolution. It was more possible than we would believe, looking back from our post-cold war perspective. No point offering them shelter to see a British version of Lenin rising to power, and just repeating the same event. Sad as it is to say, but by the time it reached revolution point it was far too late for anyone else to intervene.