The recent reference to Rasputin's assassination on the Last Words thread made me curious. For those who don't know the SP, Greggy-baby allegedly hacked off the young aristos by his familiarity to the Tsarina and Imperial family, his peculation of Army funds and pro-German leanings. So a few, rather effete scions of noble Russia decided to slot him runs the old accepted story. Allegedly he was massively poisoned, to no effect, due to a bizarre condition which neutralised the cyanide (alcoholic gastritis), then shot three times by the somewhat effete and amateurish aristos. They then chucked him into the river Neva. The contempraneous autopsy found fluid in the lungs and rumours spread that he had still been alive when lobbed into the icy Neva. However he had or was recovering from pneumonia... A swift Google reveals that (tin foil hats available) there was a mysterious British agent in the room. Allegedly the Oxford educated Oswald Rayner executed Rasputin, because the SIS were concerned about his being a conduit between the Kaiser and his cousin the Tsarina. Frankly if the SIS were going around shooting religious advisers to the Kaiser's cousins, then the Archbeako of Canterbury must has been sweating on the top line... I was always interested in the gastritis thing, because I suffered with a similar condition whilst playing rugby at university...I know, weird! If only someone had tried to cyanide me up when I was 20...how I would have laughed. Not sure I could laugh off a big bullet wound in the temple although allegedly Grigori Rasputin did. A quick review shows there are those who doubt and those who support the claim. It also seems that the famous "Yusupov" account of Rasputin's assassination is if not a complete fiction, economical with la verite! The autopsy makes it unlikely that the shooting part of the murder took place as described. The trajectories and wound locations are inconsistent with the account but of course consistent with a theoretical "execution" style, two in the body, one in the head, type killing. There is some cable traffic which implies that at this time SIS felt they had made progress in Petersburg. There is circumstantial evidence that the Tsar's attitude towards HE Sir George Buchanan suddenly and otherwise inexplicably altered in January 1917...see his papers in the care of Nottingham U. History...you couldn't make it up! Has anybody - perhaps a graduate of Nottingham University or the SIS Rasputin case officer(!)'s grandson got a view?