Empress Maria Alexandrovna,wife of Alexander II - discussion and pictures

There was no real good reason for Alexander II behaving as he did, just that he wanted to - and there was no one to tell him to his face that he was behaving shabbily.  

I think from time to time he understood that his behavior was far from perfect. But he was over head in love with Ekaterina...

Alexandra was born on August 30 1842, thus she was the eldest of Alexander II.´s children. Her father was actually very fond of her and would remember later how his little daughter sat next to him in his study while he worked and how very nice this used to be. Alexandra or "Lina" as she was called in the family died on June 28 1849 due to tubercular meninigitis. Her mother Maria Alexandrovna never really overcame the grief for her eldest child and even decades later she couldn´t talk about her "Lina" without tears in her eyes.

Thanks, Linnea.  Now I understand her mother much better....Sad for little Lina, though.  Another tragic little princess story...

I actually never knew he had an older daughter named Alexandra. It is rather a surprise to me. It is another tragic story, certainly.

Portrait of Empress Maria Alexandrovna (when she was Tsesarevna) by Makarov.



Sad and STUNNING...

what i understand from what people said here is not that he wanted heirs, but children... but that doesn't make much sense to me either. he had many children, and their ages were so different (the difference between nicholas or alexander and paul was very big) that it doesn't make any sense. maybe he loved children, but for god's sake does that mean he has to have one every year till he dies? no, i think he simply had strong feelings for katia and that's most of the explanation...

I agree.  I think he fell hard for the young woman and as Tsar there was nobody there to put their foot down so to speak.  Certainly not like later when his son AIII cleaned house as far as his wayward extended family was concerned.  But Empress Marie did exemplefy everything an Empress could possibly be especially in her time and of her circumstance.  She was dignified and a good mother and by some accounts I have read, still maintained a good relationship with her husband even though he had his whole other family.  Supposedly it was Marie Alexandrovna that insisted that he have his new family installed in the Winter Palace for their and AII's own protection during all the assassination attempts. If this is true, she was truly a woman capable of incomparable forgiveness and unconditional love.  And certainly worthy of a martyr's crown, imo. 

She was all that. She kind of became a pawn of the dynasty. She had all the neccesary children, put up with what she had to, and wasn't at all controversial in her role. She wasn't spectucular either though. I always think of her as a victim of the dynasty, and of the roles of dynastic marriage.

That's a really good way to put it.  Because whe WAS victimized in SO many ways by the Romanovs. And Especially by virtue of her position and the time she lived in.

Yes, not only in her life, but also her death. She wasn't remembered all that well, and her husband didn't waste much time forgetting about her, although perhaps he had in her life. She wasn't sparkling like MA, nor a controversial beauty like Alexandra. She wasn't a bad person, she just didn't have the qualities that capture the eye of history. Yet, she did have all the qualities of a dynastic wife, and played her role well.But, those are too dull to get much attention perhaps.

[victimized]

For the posters who say Marie Alexandrovna was "victimized" by the Romanovs and "a pawn of the dynasty" please be specific with examples of how she was victimized and examples of how she was a pawn. I don't think you can, so I challenge you to support this claim.

i don't think she was a pawn. alexander's parents opposed the marriage but he insisted upon it until they agreed. theirs was not a dynastic marriage.

the reason for all those kids was not the need for heirs (i think that would have stopped at the heir and a couple of spares - maria more than did her duty in that department), but alexander's desire for more children and maybe his strong desire to fulfil his dynastic duties?

however, she was a victim of her husband's infidelities and a somewhat lack of respect. i mean, i read somewhere that he treated her respectfully till she died (face to face) but there's nothing respectful about installing your mistress in your wife's house. and i'm sure, no matter what she said, even if she suggested it, she didn't like it. and he shouldn't have accepted her suggestion.

I absolutely agree regarding the dynastic marriage element. There's was definitely a love match, on both sides, and they were very happy together for a long time. There wasn't really anything that significant about Marie's status and, in fact, there were rumors that she and her brother Alexander (founder of the Battenberg line) weren't the children of their father. Despite this, AII was determined to have her and no one else. The letters and diary entries that exist and which are quoted in books such as Romanov Autumn are very touching.

i don't think she was a pawn. alexander's parents opposed the marriage but he insisted upon it until they agreed. theirs was not a dynastic marriage.

the reason for all those kids was not the need for heirs (i think that would have stopped at the heir and a couple of spares - maria more than did her duty in that department), but alexander's desire for more children and maybe his strong desire to fulfil his dynastic duties?

however, she was a victim of her husband's infidelities and a somewhat lack of respect. i mean, i read somewhere that he treated her respectfully till she died (face to face) but there's nothing respectful about installing your mistress in your wife's house. and i'm sure, no matter what she said, even if she suggested it, she didn't like it. and he shouldn't have accepted her suggestion.

I don't think she was a pawn either.  My statement that she was victimized is in keeping with the statement above.  I totally agree with this though it is still strictly my opinion.   As a woman living in her day and age, she was also a victim of her circumstance, IMO  As an Empress of Russia, she certainly couldn't just get up and walk out of her marriage because her husband was unfaithful. Even though he was practically a bigamist by the end of his life. 

[victimized]

For the posters who say Marie Alexandrovna was "victimized" by the Romanovs and "a pawn of the dynasty" please be specific with examples of how she was victimized and examples of how she was a pawn. I don't think you can, so I challenge you to support this claim.

Well, I think the facts speak for themselves. Many tsars had mistresses, and certainly she would have been naive not to expect that. But, it is clear that the devotion of Alexander II to his mistress extended beyond the norm, and that he really ignored her at the end of her life, when she was moreover, not well. I didn't say she was so much a victim of the Romanovs, or even of her husband ( in later years to be sure, the early years of their marriage were very happy), but of dynastic marriage. Of course, her marriage started out as a love match, but it became dynastic, especially towards the end. That's an interesting contrast with the facts of dynastic marriages ( that started out dynastically) that ended up personally happy, such as Alexander III and MF and George V and Queen Mary.

Many Tsars did have mistresses but none had so boldly acted the way AII did.  IMO, any woman would feel victimized by the lack of consideration AII had for his wife, knowing how ill she was and the respect accorded to her at least for bearing him so many children in addition to her ailing health.  To me, this in and of itself made MA a victim.  She certainly couldn't have changed it.

What would you have a virile man like Alexander II do? Remain celibate until Marie A. died in an unknown number of years. The marriages that have been cited, Alex III and Mf, Nicholas II and AF, George and Mary were all still physically strong. It makes quite a difference.
Alexander II was sovereign emperor and autocrat. He could have easily divorced Marie when the marriage became one in name only, and married anyone. There might have been a scandal, but that would have blown over. Marie would have been seen back to Hesse, or off the the Crimea, no doubt financially cared for and maybe even with an imperial title, but she would have no longer been empress. That Alexander didn't divorce her but treated her with respect and honors right up until the end is significant as to how he felt about her. Catherine was moved into the Winter Palace only for a very short time before the empress died, and, contrary to the myth, she and her children weren't installed over the empress' rooms.
In a marriage, there are two people involved. One must also take into account Alexander's feelings as well as Marie's. I am sure neither wanted the situtation, but it existed and both made an attempt to accomodate each other under the circumstances. If Marie was a victim, she was a victim of her disease and Alexander was not responsible for that. I think Alexander deserves some sympathy also.