• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Last of the Romanovs


boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,589
They would have been used to undermine the revolution from abroad. The Brits and French would have done so without a doubt. Sad but understandable.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
Insider2007 said:
Catalpa said:
It looks probable that the last of the Romanovs executed in 1918 by the Bolsheviks have now been located.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/articl ... 04,00.html

Was this an unjustified act of murder or a brutal but necessary Act of War?
The murder of children is never justified. The youngest was a 14 year old boy with a serious illness. How could that ever be justified?

If it avoided further bloodshed within the territories of the Old Empire.

Octavian did the same thing to Caesar's son Caesarion IIRC he was about 10 when he was dispatched.

The lesser of evils?
 

Insider2007

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
213
boldfenianman said:
They would have been used to undermine the revolution from abroad. The Brits and French would have done so without a doubt. Sad but understandable.
Except that there still were, and still are, Romanovs. Just because they executed Nicolas II and Mikhail II did not end the family. There still was a pretender to the throne. Indeed there still is today. A seriously ill 14 year old would have been no use whatsoever to counterrevolutionaries. Given his precarious health he was likely to die at any time. In any case Nicholas II had abdicated on his own and his children's behalfs, so none of them from February 1917 were eligible to the throne. The actual claimant was Nicholas's brother Mikhail, known sometimes as Mikhail II because he initially accepted the throne. So in killing the ex-Tsar, ex-Tsaritsa and their children they were doing a pointless act as traditionalists no longer regarded them as Tsar and Tsaritsa. It was Mikhail II who was the threat but he too was killed.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,378
Insider. The communists killed 60 million of their own so talking about a 14 year old as being unjustified brings Stalins retort of tradegy versus statistic to mind. Correct me if I am wrong but did not the Brits refuse to bring the family out so that the Whites would continue the war. there is also a conspiracy theory that the Romanovs had a 20 million gold ounces stashed in the Rockefeller bank in NYC. Some believe that this bought their escape and some believe it did not. All believe that Rockefeller got the gold.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
boldfenianman said:
They would have been used to undermine the revolution from abroad. The Brits and French would have done so without a doubt. Sad but understandable.
A preemptive strike. Didn't Bush do the same thing and people got all upset over that. Though I guess the Bolsheviks didn't have that pesky Article 51 to deal with.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
Also didn't they kill the family's servants too? They were hardly a threath to the revolution. Murder, plain and simple.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,589
Both the queen and Prince Phillip are related by blood to the Romanovs. Indeed Phil supplied a DNA sample fairly recently when some old Romanov corpse was found. Isnt Phil the queens cousin? Both descended from Victoria? Wasnt Diana Charles second cousin? Inbred bunch.
 

aoife

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
7
its 1.30 am on a saturday, either go back to the nightclub or go to bed
just get offline!!!!
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
boldfenianman said:
Both the queen and Prince Phillip are related by blood to the Romanovs. Indeed Phil supplied a DNA sample fairly recently when some old Romanov corpse was found. Isnt Phil the queens cousin? Both descended from Victoria? Wasnt Diana Charles second cousin? Inbred bunch.
What have the Birtish Royal family got to do with the Romanovs?
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
aoife said:
its 1.30 am on a saturday, either go back to the nightclub or go to bed
just get offline!!!!
Are you going to come have sex with me? If not then shurrup yer face and stop tellime me what to do!
 

BuachaillBeo

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
66
aoife said:
its 1.30 am on a saturday, either go back to the nightclub or go to bed
just get offline!!!!
I've been saying that in my head for the last while now.... (the time was obviously changed accordingly). Back to what nightclub? I've been sitting on this seat looking at the computer screen all nig..... STAY ON TOPIC :oops: :(

EDIT: Why does the time say it's posted about ten minutes before it actually is? Better stay on a while and test to see if it happens again...
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,589
CookieMonster said:
boldfenianman said:
Both the queen and Prince Phillip are related by blood to the Romanovs. Indeed Phil supplied a DNA sample fairly recently when some old Romanov corpse was found. Isnt Phil the queens cousin? Both descended from Victoria? Wasnt Diana Charles second cousin? Inbred bunch.
What have the Birtish Royal family got to do with the Romanovs?
Closely related. Sober up.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
boldfenianman said:
CookieMonster said:
boldfenianman said:
Both the queen and Prince Phillip are related by blood to the Romanovs. Indeed Phil supplied a DNA sample fairly recently when some old Romanov corpse was found. Isnt Phil the queens cousin? Both descended from Victoria? Wasnt Diana Charles second cousin? Inbred bunch.
What have the Birtish Royal family got to do with the Romanovs?
Closely related. Sober up.
I'm not drunk. Seriously, what has the information posted above, by you, got to do with the topic being discussed here?
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,316
Catalpa said:
It looks probable that the last of the Romanovs executed in 1918 by the Bolsheviks have now been located.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/articl ... 04,00.html

Was this an unjustified act of murder or a brutal but necessary Act of War?
Difficult question. In war all death seems to be murder in the pursuit of a goal. This was no different and it was brutally logical. Even Machiavelli wrote about it in "The Prince" on the section on seizing power.

By judging these events with present morals there is a tendency to get into the mode of the revisionist historians who seek to reinvent history through their own views. The deaths are simply reduced to an emotive issue devoid of historical context..

One of the greatest mistakes that a lot of people on this board seem to make is in considering affairs of state to be immoral - thus the murder of the Romanovs is seen by some as being immoral and criminal. The harsh reality is that affairs of state are amoral in that the ultimate goal is the protection of the state. And this is exactly what was at stake. With a viable link to the deposed regime, the legitimacy of the Soviet Union was always going to be in question. The Bolsheviks did what any other nation born out of a revolution did - it killed those who ruled the nation that preceded it.

Regards...jmcc
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,589
CookieMonster said:
boldfenianman said:
CookieMonster said:
boldfenianman said:
Both the queen and Prince Phillip are related by blood to the Romanovs. Indeed Phil supplied a DNA sample fairly recently when some old Romanov corpse was found. Isnt Phil the queens cousin? Both descended from Victoria? Wasnt Diana Charles second cousin? Inbred bunch.
What have the Birtish Royal family got to do with the Romanovs?
Closely related. Sober up.
I'm not drunk. Seriously, what has the information posted above, by you, got to do with the topic being discussed here?
The closeness of the Brit royal family to the Romanovs was one reason wht the brits were anti the Russian revolution. The inbred nature of the brit royal family is an indicator of this. Now sober up and go to bed.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
boldfenianman said:
CookieMonster said:
boldfenianman said:
CookieMonster said:
boldfenianman said:
Both the queen and Prince Phillip are related by blood to the Romanovs. Indeed Phil supplied a DNA sample fairly recently when some old Romanov corpse was found. Isnt Phil the queens cousin? Both descended from Victoria? Wasnt Diana Charles second cousin? Inbred bunch.
What have the Birtish Royal family got to do with the Romanovs?
Closely related. Sober up.
I'm not drunk. Seriously, what has the information posted above, by you, got to do with the topic being discussed here?
The closeness of the Brit royal family to the Romanovs was one reason wht the brits were anti the Russian revolution. The inbred nature of the brit royal family is an indicator of this. Now sober up and go to bed.
I told you, I'm not drunk.

The closeness of the British royal family has little if anything to do with the question posed by Catalpa.
 

scotusone

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
88
and yet George V was ultimately responsible for the decision not to offer refuge to the family.

they waited in petersburg for word to board the ship which was there needing only the word from london to take them . by delaying thus they lost the opportunity to flea russia and thereby lost their lives .
 
Top