The Three Emperors Read online

  ALSO BY MIRANDA CARTER

  Anthony Blunt: His Lives

  For Finn and Jesse

  CONTENTS

  Family Trees

  Maps

  Author’s Note

  Introduction

  PART I

  THREE CHILDHOODS, THREE COUNTRIES

  1 WILHELM An Experiment in Perfection 1859

  2 GEORGE Coming Second 1865

  3 NICHOLAS A Diamond-Studded Ivory Tower 1868

  PART II

  FAMILY TIES, IMPERIAL CONTESTS

  4 WILHELM EMPEROR 1888–90

  5 YOUNG MEN IN LOVE 1891–94

  6 WILHELM ANGLOPHILE 1891–95

  7 PERFIDIOUS MUSCOVY 1895–97

  8 BEHIND THE WALL 1893–1904

  9 IMPERIAL IMPERATIVES 1898–1901

  PART III

  A BRIGHT NEW CENTURY

  10 THE FOURTH EMPEROR 1901–4

  11 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 1904–5

  12 CONTINENTAL SHIFTS 1906–8

  13 A BALKAN CRISIS 1908—9

  14 EDWARD’S MANTLE 1910–11

  15 CELEBRATIONS AND WARNINGS 1911–14

  16 JULY 1914

  PART IV

  ARMAGEDDON

  17 A WAR 1914–18

  EPILOGUE

  Notes

  Bibliography

  Acknowledgements

  List of Illustrations

  Illustrations

  AUTHOR’S NOTE

  Until 1918 Russian dates followed the Julian, or Old Style, calendar, rather than the Gregorian one we use today. In the nineteenth century this meant Russian dates were twelve days behind Western dates, and in the twentieth century, thirteen. In my notes I have used the abbreviation “OS” to mark Julian calendar dates.

  I have also taken the decision, where the character or name has a well-established Western or Anglicized alternative, to go with the Anglicization, i.e., Leo instead of Lev (Tolstoy), Nicholas instead of Nikolai, Augusta Victoria instead of Auguste Viktoria, Hapsburg instead of Habsburg.

  INTRODUCTION

  July 1917, as the First World War reached its third exhausting year, was not a good month for monarchs. In London, George V, King of Great Britain and Emperor of India, decided to change his name. A month or so before, he had held a dinner party at Buckingham Palace. The occasion would have been slightly grimmer and plainer than usual for a European monarch. In an effort to show their commitment to the war effort, George and his wife, Mary, had instituted a spartan regime at the palace: no heating, dim lighting, “simple” food—mutton instead of lamb, pink blancmange instead of mousses and sorbets—and no alcohol. The king had taken a pledge of abstinence for the duration as an example to the nation—an example to which it had remained noticeably deaf. Since there was no rationing in England, the aristocratic guests would almost certainly have eaten better at home. Nor, very probably, was the conversation precisely scintillating. The king and queen were known for their dedication to duty and moral uprightness, but not for their social adeptness: “the King is duller than the Queen,” went the refrain of a rather mean little poem by the society wit Max Beerbohm. During the course of the meal, Lady Maud Warrender, occasional lady-in-waiting to Queen Mary and a friend of Edward Elgar and Henry James, happened to let slip that there were rumours going round that because of the king’s family name—Saxe-Coburg-Gotha—he was regarded as pro-German. Hearing this, George “started and grew1 pale.” He left the table soon afterwards. He’d been shaken by the abdication and arrest in March of his cousin the Russian tsar, Nicholas II; the new rumours made him fear again for his position. He had always been hypersensitive to criticism and was prone to self-pity, though he tended to cover it with barking anger. The war had gnawed at him; it had turned his beard white and given him great bags under his eyes and somehow eroded him: observers said he looked like an old worn-out penny.

  Things were worse for George’s cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German emperor. The war had once and for all destroyed the pretence that Wilhelm—supposedly the apex of the German autocracy—was capable of providing any kind of consistent leadership. In early July the kaiser’s two most senior generals, Ludendorff and Hindenburg, threatened to resign unless Wilhelm sacked his chancellor. The gesture was a move to demonstrate and secure their hold over the civilian government. Wilhelm ranted and complained, but his beleaguered chancellor resigned anyway. The generals imposed their own replacement. They took away the kaiser’s title of “Supreme Warlord” and awarded it to Hindenburg. “I may as well abdicate,” Wilhelm grumbled. But he didn’t, remaining the increasingly flimsy fig leaf of a military dictatorship. In Germany, they began to call him “the Shadow-Emperor.” (In Britain and America mass propaganda portrayed him as a child-eating monster, egging his troops on to ever greater atrocities.) Those closest to him worried about the serious “declining popularity of the monarchical idea,” and sighed over the levels of self-deception—Wilhelm veered between depression and “his well-known, impossible, Victory mood.” Through the hot July days, a virtual prisoner of the army, he shuffled from front to front, pinning on medals, then dining at some grand aristocrat’s large estates: “Once more a rich dinner and the same bunch of idlers,”2 a particularly disillusioned member of his entourage observed.

  Further east, just outside Petrograd in Russia, at Alexander Palace at Tsarskoe Selo, “the Tsar’s village,” George’s other cousin, Nicholas Romanov, the former tsar—to whom the king had always said he was devoted—was in his fourth month of house arrest since his abdication. Throughout July, Nicholas spent his days reading, cutting wood and pottering in the kitchen gardens of the palace. It was a life that in many respects suited him, and he seemed to greet his downfall with a stoic calmness that might even have been relief—but then he’d always been hard to read. On hot days his children swam in the lake, and his son Alexis showed the household his collection of silent films on his cinematograph. Beyond Tsarskoe Selo, Russian soldiers at the front were mutinying, and on 3 July angry workers, soldiers and Bolsheviks had taken to the streets of Petrograd. There was fierce fighting as the moderate provisional government struggled to stay in control. The city was full of furious rumours that the hated Romanovs were about to flee the country. A few weeks before, the provisional government’s foreign minister had asked the British ambassador for the second time whether Britain could give asylum to the former tsar and his family. The ambassador, deeply embarrassed, said it was impossible. At the end of the month Alexander Kerensky, the new prime minister, told Nicholas that the family would have to get away from Petrograd for their own safety, just for a few months. They must be packed and ready to leave by 31 July. Their destination was Tobolsk in Siberia—which had a certain appropriateness; the old regime had consigned thousands of its enemies to Siberia. Nicholas’s wife, Alexandra—perhaps the most hated woman in all Russia—wrote to a friend, “what suffering our3 departure is; all packed, empty rooms—it hurts so much.”

  Back in England, George came up with a new last name for himself: Windsor—irreproachably English-sounding, and entirely made up. It established the British royal family once and for all as a slightly stolid but utterly reliable product of the English Home Counties. Though, of course, it wasn’t. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha—like Windsor, not so much a surname as a statement of provenance—had been given to George’s grandmother Queen Victoria (herself half-German) by his grandfather Albert, the Prince Consort, son of the German Duke of Coburg. It was redolent of the close relations and blood ties that linked the whole of European royalty, and which in Britain had been crowned by the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm was Queen Victoria’s eldest grandson. George’s father was Wilhelm’s uncle; his mother was Nicholas’s aunt; Wilhelm and Nicholas, meanwhile, were both second a
nd third cousins, through the marriage of a great-aunt, and a shared great-great-grandfather, the mad Tsar Paul of Russia.

  When Wilhelm heard that George had changed his name, he made his almost only ever recorded joke: that he was looking forward to seeing a production of the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

  Fifty-odd years before, these three emperors had been born into a world where hereditary monarchy seemed immutable, and the intermarriage between and internationalism of royal dynasties a guarantee of peace and good international relations. How the world had changed. This book tells the story of that change, through the lives of George, Wilhelm, the last kaiser, and Nicholas, the last tsar, and how they presided over the final years of old dynastic Europe and the outbreak of the First World War, the event which set twentieth-century Europe on course to be the most violent continent in the history of the world.

  Throughout their lives, Wilhelm, George and Nicholas wrote to each other and about each other in letters and diaries. The history of their relationships—as well as those with George and Wilhelm’s grandmother Queen Victoria and her son Edward VII, who also ruled during this era and whose relationships with the three men were crucial (there were moments in this book’s writing when I almost considered calling it “Four Emperors and an Empress”)—is a saga of an extended and often dysfunctional family, set in a tiny, glittering, solipsistic, highly codified world. But this personal, hidden history also shows how Europe moved from an age of empire to an age of democracy, self-determination and greater brutality.

  Wilhelm and Nicholas wielded real power, more power perhaps than any individual should have in a complex modern society—certainly more than any unelected individual. What they said and did mattered. George did not—though neither he nor his father nor grandmother liked to acknowledge it—but his role in the functioning of government was welded into the fabric of British and empire constitutional politics, and there were moments when the monarch could make a difference.

  And yet, at the same time, they were all three anachronisms, ill-equipped by education and personality to deal with the modern world, marooned by history in positions increasingly out of kilter with their era. The system within which they existed was dying, and the courts of Europe had turned from energetic centres of patronage into stagnant ponds of tradition and conservatism. The world was leaving them behind. The great technical innovations and breakthroughs, the great scientific theories, the great modern masterpieces of art and letters, were being produced by men—Chekhov, Stravinsky, Einstein, Freud, Planck, Yeats, Wilde, Picasso—who might have been born under monarchies, but for whom the courts meant nothing. As great mass movements took hold of Europe, the courts and their kings cleaved to the past, set up high walls of etiquette to keep the world out and defined themselves through form, dress and precedence. The Berlin court, for example, had sixty-three grades of military officer alone. The Russian court included 287 chamberlains and 309 chief gentlemen in waiting.

  Though the world was overtaking them, the three emperors witnessed high politics in the decades before the war from a proximity denied anyone else—even if the conclusions they drew from events were often the wrong ones. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas led their countries into a conflict that tore their nations apart, destroyed the illusion of their family relationships and resulted in their own abdication, exile and death. George looked on, usually powerless to do anything. Every so often, however,

  there came an occasion when his decisions did have consequences. By a terrible irony, 1917—the year he changed his name—would give rise to one of those moments, when he had power over the future of his cousin Nicholas. His decision would vividly demonstrate how Queen Victoria’s vision of royal relationships—indeed the whole edifice of European monarchy—was irrefutably broken.

  PART I

  THREE CHILDHOODS, THREE COUNTRIES

  1

  WILHELM

  An Experiment in Perfection

  1859

  It was a horrible labour. The baby was in the breech position and no one realized until too late. The eighteen-year-old mother had been too embarrassed to allow any of the court physicians to examine or even talk to her about her pregnancy—a prudishness learned from her own mother. The experience of childbirth would cure her of it. To make matters worse, an urgent summons to Berlin’s most eminent obstetrician got lost. After ten or eleven hours of excruciating pain—the mother cried for chloroform, she was given a handkerchief to bite on (her screams, her husband later wrote, were “horrible”)—the attending doctors, one German, one English, had pretty much given up on her and the baby. (There were bad precedents for medics who carried out risky interventions on royal patients: when Princess Charlotte, the heir to the British throne, died in childbirth in 1817, the attending physician felt obliged to shoot himself.) The child survived only because the famous obstetrician eventually received the message and arrived at the last minute. With liberal doses of chloroform and some difficulty, the doctor managed to manipulate the baby out. He emerged pale, limp, one arm around his neck, badly bruised and not breathing. The attending nurse had to rub and slap him repeatedly to make him cry. The sound, when it came, the boy’s father wrote, “cut through me like an electric shock.”1 Everybody wept with relief. It was 27 January 1859.

  At the moment of his birth, two, or arguably three, factors immediately had a defining effect on the life and character of Friedrich Victor Wilhelm Albert Hohenzollern—soon known as Willy to distinguish him, his father said, from the “legion of Fritzes”2 in the family. Firstly, the baby’s left arm was damaged in the delivery—a fact which, in the relief and excitement following his birth, wasn’t noticed for three days. It seems likely that in the obstetrician’s urgency to get the baby out before he suffocated, he wrenched and irretrievably crushed the network of nerves in Willy’s arm, rendering it useless and unable to grow. Secondly, and unprovably, it’s possible that those first few minutes without oxygen may have caused brain damage. Willy grew up to be hyperactive and emotionally unstable; brain damage sustained at birth was a possible cause.

  Thirdly, an almost impossible burden of conflicting demands and expectations came to rest upon Willy at the moment of his birth. Through his father, Friedrich, one of the ubiquitous Fritzes, he was heir to the throne of Prussia; his mother, Vicky, was the first-born child of Queen Victoria of Great Britain, and he was the British queen’s first grandchild. As heir to Prussia, the biggest and most influential power in the loose confederation of thirty-eight duchies, kingdoms and four free cities that called itself Germany, he carried his family’s and country’s dreams of the future. Those dreams saw Prussia as the dominant power in a unified Germany, taking its place as one of the Great Powers. For Queen Victoria, monarch of the richest and arguably most influential country in the world, Willy was both a doted-on grandchild—“a fine fat child3 with a beautiful soft white skin,” as she put it when she finally saw him twenty months later—and the symbol and vehicle of a new political and dynastic bond between England and Prussia, a state whose future might take it in several different directions, directions in which Britain’s monarch and her husband took an intense interest. Three days after his birth the queen wrote delightedly to her friend and fellow grandmother Augusta of Prussia, “Our mutual grandson4 binds us and our two countries even closer together!”

  Queen Victoria felt a deep affinity with Germany. Her mother was German and so was her husband, Albert, the younger brother of the ruling duke of the small but influential central German duchy of Coburg. She carried on intense correspondences with several German royals, including Fritz’s mother, Augusta, and she would marry six of her nine children to Germans. Although the queen’s Germanophilia was sometimes criticized in England, the British were at least less hostile to the Germans than they were to France and Russia, and occasionally even approving. At the battle of Waterloo, Britain and Prussia had fought side by side to defeat Napoleon, and well into the 1850s as a salute to the old alliance there were still German
regiments stationed on the South Coast. Thomas Hardy described the German hussars stationed in Dorset in the 1850s as being so deeply embedded in the local culture that their language had over the years woven itself into the local dialect: “Thou bist” and “Er war” becoming familiar locutions. Germany—or at least the northern part—was the other Protestant power in Europe. German culture was much admired. In turn, German liberals looked to Britain as the model for a future German constitutional monarchy, its traders admired British practice, and at the other end of the political spectrum, it was to England that some of the more reactionary members of the German ruling elite—including Willy’s German grandfather—had fled during the revolutions of 1848. There he and his wife Augusta had become friends—sort of—of the queen and her husband Albert.

  Albert, the Prince Consort, an intelligent, energetic and thoughtful man denied a formal public role in England, was even more preoccupied with Germany than his wife, particularly with its future and that of its ruling class. He had seen the German royals rocked by the revolutions of 1848, their very existence called into question by the rise of republicanism and democratic movements. He’d come to believe that Germany’s future lay in unification under a modern liberal constitutional monarchy, like that of England. Prussia, as the largest, strongest state in Germany, was the obvious candidate.

  Though it was not necessarily the perfect one. Prussia was a peculiar hybrid, rather like Germany itself: it was half dynamic and forward-looking, half autocratic backwater. On the one hand, it was a rich state with an impressive civil service, a fine education system, and a fast-growing industrial heartland in the Western Rhineland. It had been one of the first states in Europe to emancipate Jews, and had a tradition of active citizenship, demonstrated most visibly in 1813, when it had not been the pusillanimous king but a determined citizenry who had pulled together an army to fight Napoleon. After 1848 a representative assembly, the Landtag, had been forced on the king, and liberal politicians and thinkers seemed to be in the ascendant. On the other hand, however, Prussia was stuck in the dark ages: it was a semi-autocracy whose ruling institutions were dominated by a deeply conservative small landowning class from its traditional heartland on the East Elbian plain, the Junkers. They had a reputation for being tough, austere, incorruptible, fearsomely reactionary, piously Protestant, anti-Semitic, feudal in their attitudes to their workers, their land and their women, and resistant to almost any change—whether democratization, urbanization or industrialization—which might threaten their considerable privileges. These included almost total exemption from taxation. They dominated the Prussian court, the most conservative in Germany. They regarded Prussia’s next-door neighbour, Russia—England’s great world rival—as their natural ally, sharing with Russia a long frontier, a belief in autocratic government and a pervasive military culture.