After the 1917 Russian revolution the British government granted asylum in Britain to Nicholas II, his wife and their immediate family. King George V intervened and the offer of asylum was withdrawn.
i) Why did George V not want Nicholas II granted asylum in Britain?
ii) On what constitutional basis was the King allowed to overule parliament in this case?
2007-09-21 22:25:44 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Because he was concerned that there might be a revolution here. Also the Russian royal family would have been a focus for anti-revolutionary forces which was seen as a possible problem in the middle of a war. I am not aware that Parliament had formally offered asylum. The matter was only ever discussed informally and there was no problem, therefore, with George V saying 'no' t6o his cousin.
2007-09-21 23:57:43 · answer #1 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In September 1915, Nicholas II assumed supreme command of the Russian Army fighting on the Eastern Front. This linked him to the country's military failures and during 1917 there was a strong decline support for the Tsar in Russia. On 13th July, 1917, the Russian Army High Command recommended that Nicholas abdicated. Two days later the Tsar renounced the throne.
The Tsar and his immediate family were arrested and negotiations began to find a place of overseas exile. P. N. Milyukov persuaded David Lloyd George, to offer the family political asylum in Britain. When Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, a first cousin of George through his mother, Queen Alexandra (Nicholas II's mother was Maria Fyodorovna, Queen Alexandra's sister) was overthrown in the Russian Revolution of 1917, the British Government offered asylum to the Tsar and his family but worsening conditions for the British people, and fears that revolution might come to the British Isles, led George to think that the presence of the Romanovs might seem inappropriate under the circumstances. Despite the later claims of Lord Mountbatten of Burma that David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, was opposed to the rescue of the Romanovs, records of the King's private secretary, Lord Stamfordham, suggest that George V opposed the rescue against the advice of Lloyd George. Advanced planning for a rescue was undertaken by MI1, a branch of the British secret service, but because of the strengthening Bolshevik position and wider difficulties with the conduct of the war, the plan was never put into operation. The Tsar and his immediate family thus remained in Russia and were murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Yekaterinburg in 1918.
2007-09-22 00:05:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
King George resists
Another of George's cousins was the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, a first cousin of George through his mother, Queen Alexandra. Nicholas II's mother was Queen Alexandra's sister. The two men were almost identical in appearance. When the revolution of 1917 toppled the Russian monarchy, George asked his ministers to ensure that the Tsar and his family be saved and brought to Britain for their safety. Worsening conditions for the British people, and fears that revolution might come to the British Isles, led George to develop an atmosphere of austerity around him, and he reversed himself, thinking that the presence of the Romanovs might seem inappropriate under the circumstances. Despite the later claims of Lord Mountbatten of Burma that Lloyd George, the great Liberal, was opposed to the rescue of the Romanovs, records of the King's private secretary, Stamfordham, suggest that he did this against the advice of Lloyd George, who is often wrongly blamed for the loss of the Romanovs. And thus the Tsar and his immediate family remained in Russia and were murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Yekaterinburg.
gatita_63109
2007-09-22 07:19:09 · answer #3 · answered by gatita 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
King George V was a filthy coward for not offering asylum to his first cousin, Czar Nicolas II, and his family,
and he was completely responsible for their horrible murder by the Bosheviks.
2014-10-29 10:56:02 · answer #4 · answered by William 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He had a personal dislike of him and he was worried in case his presence in Britain might give the British working class a similar idea to the Russians.
2007-09-22 05:25:45 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wasn't George V related to Nicholas II? I'm sure I've read somewhere that he was
2007-09-21 23:06:30 · answer #6 · answered by trundly 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
didnt want to be seen in the same light and face a revelution here.
2007-09-21 23:33:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the English is treacherous, that is why they are called "perfidious Albion".
2016-01-01 13:55:25 · answer #8 · answered by Harry Sung 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, if one reads antony sutton's wall street trilogies, it becomes clear that the Tzar & his family were executed for standing against the Vienna Congress to make the nwo,thus king george did help & made sure the Romanovs were murdered.....
2014-05-29 17:33:26 · answer #9 · answered by samarkis 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he ordered the execution of the Romanov's.
2007-09-21 22:30:58 · answer #10 · answered by elizadushku 6 · 1⤊ 7⤋