Читаем The Crimean War полностью

The suddenness of his June arrival took everybody by surprise. There had been vague talk of his visit since the spring. Peel had welcomed the idea at a banquet for the Russian Trading Company in the London Tavern on 2 March, and three days later Lord Aberdeen, the Foreign Secretary, had sent a formal invitation via Baron Brunov, reassuring the Tsar that his presence would ‘dispel any Polish prejudices’ against Russia in Britain. ‘For such a reserved and nervous man as Aberdeen to speak so confidently on this matter is significant,’ Brunov wrote to Nesselrode. As for the Queen, at first she was reluctant to receive the Tsar, on the grounds of his long-standing conflict with her uncle Leopold, king of the newly independent Belgium, who had attracted many Polish exiles to his army during the 1830s. Determined to uphold the legitimist principles of the Holy Alliance, Nicholas had wanted to restore the monarchies deposed by the French and Belgian revolutions of 1830, and had been prevented only by the outbreak of the Polish uprising in Warsaw in November of that year. His threats of intervention had earned him the mistrust of West European liberals, who labelled him the ‘gendarme of Europe’, while the Polish rebels who fled abroad after the suppression of their uprising had found a welcome refuge in Paris, Brussels and London. These were the developments that worried Queen Victoria, but eventually she was persuaded by her husband, Prince Albert (who was also a nephew of King Leopold), that a visit by the Tsar would help to mend relations between the ruling houses on the Continent. In her invitation to the Tsar, Victoria had said that she would welcome him in late May or early June, but no date had been set. In mid-May it was still not clear if Nicholas would come. In the end, the Queen learned of his arrival a few hours before his steamer landed at Woolwich. Her staff were thrown into a panic, not least because they were expecting a visit from the King of Saxony on the same day, and hasty preparations to receive the Tsar needed to be improvised.4

The Tsar’s impromptu visit was one of many signs of a growing rashness in his behaviour. After eighteen years on the throne he had begun to lose those qualities that had characterized his early rule: caution, conservatism and reserve. Increasingly affected by the hereditary mental illness that had troubled Alexander in his final years, Nicholas became impatient and impetuous, and inclined to impulsive behaviour, like rushing off to London to impose his will on the British. His erratic nature was noted by Prince Albert and the Queen, who wrote to her uncle Leopold: ‘Albert thinks he is a man inclined to give way too much to impulse and feeling which makes him act wrongly often.’ 5

The day after his arrival, the Queen received the Tsar at Buckingham Palace. There was a meeting with the dukes of Cambridge, Wellington and Gloucester, followed by a tour of London’s fashionable West End streets. The Tsar inspected the building work at the Houses of Parliament, which at that time were being reconstructed after the fire of 1834, and visited the newly finished Regent’s Park. In the evening the royal party travelled by train to Windsor, where they remained for the next five days. The Tsar astonished the servants with his spartan habits. The first thing his valets did on being shown his bedroom at Windsor Castle was to send to the stable for some straw to stuff the leather sack which served as the mattress of the military campbed on which the Tsar always slept.6

Because the Queen was heavily pregnant and the Saxe-Coburgs were in mourning for Prince Albert’s father, there was no royal ball in the Tsar’s honour. But there were plenty of other amusements: hunting parties; military reviews; outings to the races at Ascot (where the Gold Cup was renamed the Emperor’s Plate in honour of the Tsard); an evening with the Queen at the opera; and a glittering banquet where more than sixty guests ate their way through fifty-three different dishes served from the Grand Service, possibly the finest collection of silver-gilt dining plate in the world. On his last two evenings, there were large dinners where the male guests dressed in military uniform, in line with the wishes of the Tsar, who felt uncomfortable en frac and admitted to the Queen that he was embarrassed when not dressed in a uniform.7

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

100 дней в кровавом аду. Будапешт — «дунайский Сталинград»?
100 дней в кровавом аду. Будапешт — «дунайский Сталинград»?

Зимой 1944/45 г. Красной Армии впервые в своей истории пришлось штурмовать крупный европейский город с миллионным населением — Будапешт.Этот штурм стал одним из самых продолжительных и кровопролитных сражений Второй мировой войны. Битва за венгерскую столицу, в результате которой из войны был выбит последний союзник Гитлера, длилась почти столько же, сколько бои в Сталинграде, а потери Красной Армии под Будапештом сопоставимы с потерями в Берлинской операции.С момента появления наших танков на окраинах венгерской столицы до завершения уличных боев прошло 102 дня. Для сравнения — Берлин был взят за две недели, а Вена — всего за шесть суток.Ожесточение боев и потери сторон при штурме Будапешта были так велики, что западные историки называют эту операцию «Сталинградом на берегах Дуная».Новая книга Андрея Васильченко — подробная хроника сражения, глубокий анализ соотношения сил и хода боевых действий. Впервые в отечественной литературе кровавый ад Будапешта, ставшего ареной беспощадной битвы на уничтожение, показан не только с советской стороны, но и со стороны противника.

Андрей Вячеславович Васильченко

История / Образование и наука
АНТИ-Стариков
АНТИ-Стариков

Николай Стариков, который позиционирует себя в качестве писателя, публициста, экономиста и политического деятеля, в 2005-м написал свой первый программный труд «Кто убил Российскую империю? Главная тайна XX века». Позже, в развитие темы, была выпущена целая серия книг автора. Потом он организовал общественное движение «Профсоюз граждан России», выросшее в Партию Великое Отечество (ПВО).Петр Балаев, долгие годы проработавший замначальника Владивостокской таможни по правоохранительной деятельности, считает, что «продолжение активной жизни этого персонажа на политической арене неизбежно приведёт к компрометации всего патриотического движения».Автор, вступивший в полемику с Н. Стариковым, говорит: «Надеюсь, у меня получилось убедительно показать, что популярная среди сторонников лидера ПВО «правда» об Октябрьской революции 1917 года, как о результате англосаксонского заговора, является чепухой, выдуманной человеком, не только не знающим истории, но и не способным даже более-менее правдиво обосновать свою ложь». Какие аргументы приводит П. Балаев в доказательство своих слов — вы сможете узнать, прочитав его книгу.

Петр Григорьевич Балаев

Альтернативные науки и научные теории / История / Образование и наука