What Could Nicholas II Have Done to Preserve the Imperial Throne?

I know that killing women was not thought about the way it is today and that it was the men who were thought to be in charge, but there were attempts of Queen Victoria's life a few times

And the wife of Francis Joseph, Elizabeth (Sissi) was murdered by an assassin.

So was Draga, Queen of Serbia.
 And, killing Alexandra would have done nothing for any cause. Except perhaps to make her a martyr in the eyes of her immediate family. It would not have altered in any way the autocracy. If anything, it would make the regime even more harsh.
 Nicholas could have conceivably remarried and had another heir. That is, if he could find someone to marry into that disfunctional family.

However, the account raises more questions than it answers . . . .

It certainly does.  And the name Kurlov is the needle pulling the thread of Bogrov through the whole fabric of the story.

Kurlov goes to Stolypin to tell him that Bogrov is going to report on a meeting of terrorists set for the day of the opera, so that Stolypin and his security guard will not be surprised to see Bogrov show up at the opera house where he would find the security people to whom he was to report.  And that security guard was not Stolypin's usual stalwart protector Deksbach, who had seen Stolypin safely through several assassination attempts, but one Yessoulov who had been substituted for the Kiev ceremonies.

Yet this supposed terrorist meeting, where bombs for attacks on the assembled tsarist officials were to be handed out, was inexplicably rescheduled for the next day when the opportunity to find all the targets assembled in an enclosed space would have passed.

Then, despite careful planning to keep anyone out of the theater who was not pre-cleared for a special pass, Bogrov is somehow given a pass and allowed inside the secured perimeter when his contact, Kurlov's deputy Kuliabko, could just have easily stepped outside to meet him and receive the report.

Then Kurlov, supposedly alarmed at seeing Bogrov inside the theater, orders Kuliabko during the first intermission to eject Bogrov and escort him back to his lodgings where he was to be confined.

Kuliabko confirms to Kurlov that Bogrov had been escorted out and was confined in his apartment.

It later turns out that Kuliabko had supposedly delayed ejecting Bogrov from the theater and even then did not bother to be sure he was confined to his apartment, as ordered and as supposedly reported back to Kurlov.

Bogrov was either the very lucky beneficiary of an extraordinary series of intelligence errors and security gaffes in what Spiridovitch paints as a thoroughly-planned and tightly-run operation . . . or he had some inside help.

To me, the notion that so many unlikely events all aligned perfectly to put Bogrov, gun in hand, in front of Stolypin that evening smacks to me a bit of all the happy accidents and fortuitous coincidences that had to align to get Anna Anderson out of that basement in Ekaterinburg or Marga Boodts delivered safely from Ekaterinburg to Vladivostok in a sack of hay.  Most people have some luck.  A few people have lots of luck.  But very few people have lots of luck combined with perfect timing at critical junctures.

I wonder why the assassins just didn't shoot Alexandra.

I know that killing women was not thought about the way it is today and that it was the men who were thought to be in charge, but there were attempts of Queen Victoria's life a few times.

Alexandra was certainly unpopular, first with the Rasputin scandal and then with the war leading to rumours that she was on the side of the enemy.

Towards the end, the rest of the family certainly wanted Alexandra removed one way or another, after she started having Romanovs arrested (Dmitry Pavlovich) after the murder of Rasputin and banished from Petrograd (Felix, Uncle Bimbo).

When Sandro visited Maria Fyodorovna in Kiev and told her what was going on, she wrote in her diary: "It is simply a madhouse, headed by this fury... His story made Olga and I shudder... She has evidently gone completely off her head with madness and desire for revenge."

Slightly later, Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich wrote to Maria Fyodorovna about the logical follow-up to the removal of Rasputin: "After we have removed the hypnotist, we must try to incapacitate the hypnotised. No matter how hard it is, she must be sent as far away as possible, either to a sanatorium or to a convent. We are talking about saving the throne -- not the dynasty, which is still secure, but the current sovereign. Otherwise, it will be too late... The whole of Russia knows that the late Rasputin and A. F. are the one and the same. The first has been killed, now the other must also disappear…" [Source: GA RF, F. 642, Op. 1, D. 2350, L. 34 (verso), 35]

Alexandra was certainly unpopular . . . .

Alexandra seemed to go out of her way to offend her husband's subjects.  On a trip to the Crimea the imperial train stopped at a waystation.  The Minister of the Court told the tsar that a crowd had assembled on the platform, anxious to catch a glimpse of their tsar and tsarina.  Though reluctant, Nicholas bent to the pleas of his suite to go to a window and wave to the crowd.  Alexandra, however, maintained her refusal.  When the incident came to Marie Feodorovna's attention, she erupted in indignation at Alexandra's overbearing arrogance, complaining that she felt herself above having to trouble to win the affection of the people by even the simplest of measures.

As impolitic as the senior GD Marie Pavlovna's unleashing her acid tongue against the imperial couple could be, she hit the nail on the head when she famously commented, in unmistakable reference to Alexandra, that "one ought to know one's job".

And, killing Alexandra would have done nothing for any cause. Except perhaps to make her a martyr in the eyes of her immediate family. It would not have altered in any way the autocracy. If anything, it would make the regime even more harsh

Yeah, Nicholas might have sought revenge against those that murdered his wife.

in reference to Tsarfan's and others quotes regarding Empress Alexandra's desire not to engage with her subjects:

The Empress was the only WWI consort to become a fully qualified 'hands on nurse' along with her two elder daughters. The only part exception being Queen Marie of Romania. However Marie and her daughters were 'nursing assistants' for the Red Cross and fulfilled a role much closer to that of the younger Grand Duchesses Maria and Anastasia, in providing morale with their presence (although they did help bandage etc). Empress Alexandra was the ONLY consort to actually get involed with the 'blood and guts' reality of operations and actual day to day nursing care for wounded troops.

One simply cannot imagine either Maria Feodorovna or Maria Pavlovna (the elder) ever doing such a thing. Alexandra we know was painfully shy, these two particular women knew that perfectly well and such quotes about Alexandra 'not knowing her job' are deeply biased by their own respective agendas. The facts speak for themselves, whilst she may have been too shy to wave to her subjects sometimes, when it came to it, unlike any of her contemporary detractors she was prepared to immerse herself and her daughters in their subjects personal care, blood, pus, sick and all. Whatever else one may say about Empress Alexandra you simply have to concede that this was an extraordinarily brave and selfless thing to do.

I very much admire the Empress for her nursing (and for involving her daughters as well). It's just about the only thing she did to ingratiate herself, sadly and foolishly, to common Russians during the years leading up to the revolution. I think part of the point that Tsarfan was making and a sentiment I share in is that even her efforts in the hospital, however, were done on her terms not someone elses. Taking those small steps like hand waving and other pleasant gestures towards the masses and while in Court seems have eluded her. It wasn't her "job" as Empress to get her hands dirty in the OR...a selfless act that we appreciate much more after the fact than most probably did at the time. On the other hand she failed quite spectacularly in those areas that would be deemed important to the role of Tsarina.

Erik

Going on from what you say, one of Alexandra's major problems was that everything she did was on her own terms! Further, her self-righteousness about what she did and conviction that only she knew what Russia needed were bound to alienate those around her.

Ann

The Empress was the only WWI consort to become a fully qualified 'hands on nurse' . . . .

Queen Olga of Greece worked as a nurse, both in Greece and later in Russia.  In fact, at the time of the revolution she was living back at her family home, the Pavlovsk Palace, which she left early every morning and to which she returned in the evening after working a full shift in a hospital.  And her successor as Queen of the Hellenes, Sophie of Prussia, also worked as a nurse.

In fact, nursing became something of a fad among the higher nobility during WWI.  Olga Alexandrovna did it.  Marie Pavlovna the Younger did it.  Elizabeth Feodorovna did it.  (Even the popular miniseries Downton Abbey alludes to this phenomenon in a scene in which Maggie Smith, playing the crusty Dowager Countess of Grantham, supports her granddaughter's decision to become a nurse by noting that the royals had made it respectable by doing it themselves.)

Alexandra's nursing may have won her some points, but by then it was far too late.

Alexandra was more of a symptom than the cause of the downfall.  Seriously. It goes way too far to believe that the Russian people gave up on the Imperial system because of anything Alexandra did or did not do. Nursing had nothing to do with anything.  It was the entire system that failed during the combined stresses of Russia becoming a more modern European style society and the total failure of the infrastructure to cope with the stress of fighting (and losing) World War I.

For all of Alexandra's faults, nothing she could have done would have changed anything other than the feelings of Nicholas' immediate family and some of the major Aristocratic families.  If she had been Marie Feodorvna in character, then all that would have changed would have  been the Romanovs, Yussopovs, Golitsyns etc would have liked her and been perhaps more loyal to Nicholas.  But, that would still not have stopped the middle class and intelligensia from becoming dissatisfied with the status quo, and would not have provided bread on the streets of Petersburg and Moscow and Kiev and Odessa....

They could have worshiped Alexandra at Court, and that would have done nothing to deter the foot soldiers and common sailors from losing faith in the system and disobeying their officers.

The Titanic had hit the iceberg and nothing could have been done to change it.  To wish Alexandra was a better person and think that would have changed anything would be the same thing as wishing J. Bruce Ismay was a hero instead of saving himself. The ship would still sink either way...the damage was irreversible and Alexandra's faults were only minor roles to play.

I suppose it ultimately boils down to a question of philosophy. Alexandra is a perfect example of Aristotle's notion of an individual striving for personal moral excellence and what can happen when that is at odds with the needs of the society they live in. Alexandra's religious beliefs meant that in everthing she did she strove to be an 'excellent' christian, wife, mother and Empress. In reality of course this in effect turned her into an inflexible fanatic. However, her motivation was for personal moral excellence and the common good.

The most pertinent question is therefore, why was her belief system and goals so out of step with the needs of the society she lived in? The main but not entire reason is that she lost rationality and perspective due to extreme personal tragedy. The sheer level of physical suffering her son endured compounded by the dynastic burdens that resulted from his health and the fact that she felt to blame (and was blamed ) meant that she was utterly desperate.

As a result when Rasputin came along she believed God had sent him to help her, her son and Russia. To be fair it has to be remembered that for whatever reason Rasputin WAS able to help her son when no one else could and most probably DID save the Tsarevitch's life on more than one occasion. Alexandra was more desperate in this respect than Nicholas because as Empress it was 'her job' to provide an heir. Her interfering in politics at the end of her husband's reign was largely out of a sense of gratitude to God for having sent someone to help her/Alexei/Russia. Alexandra's complete disconnect from reality (and that of Nicholas's for that matter) is summed up perfectly by her genuine surprise at the Revolution of 1917.

Its one thing to point out her mistakes as Empress, of which there were many but to fully understand the events you have take into account this woman's tragic situation and flawed but compassionate character aswell. To say that she was just simply, haughty or self righteous is to turn her into a two dimensional storybook character. The truth is much more complex and interesting than that.

Alexandra was more of a symptom than the cause of the downfall.  Seriously. It goes way too far to believe that the Russian people gave up on the Imperial system because of anything Alexandra did or did not do.

I agree that Alexandra was in good measure a symptom more than a cause of what was wrong with Russian autocracy by the late 19th century.  However, I would not absolve her entirely of fault in bringing down the monarchy.

It really hinges on the question of whether, despite all the stresses in the system arising from industrialization, emancipation without land reform, and related tensions, autocracy could have somehow weathered the storm of WWI had Nicholas not made some incredibly unfortunate decisions after 1905 and especially from 1915 onward.

If one is of the view -- and I'm not entirely sure that I am -- that another revolution could have been avoided had a different tsar been on the throne after 1905, then I think Alexandra does bear some blame for bringing down the monarchy.  She was resentful of Witte and implacably hostile to Stolypin, both of whom might have had a chance to stabilize Russia had Nicholas given them more unstinting support.  And it was her hostility to both that influenced in some measure Nicholas' shabby dealing with them.  (Remember that she even had Stolypin spied upon.)  And it was certainly her encouragement that Nicholas refuse all pleas for ministries responsible to the Duma, her insistence that Nicholas reject his counselors' advice and replace his uncle as Supreme Commander of the Military, and the almost unbelievable spinning jenny of mediocre or downright absurd ministerial appointments that she and Rasputin worked to bring about once Nicholas was out of St. Petersburg that had a lot to do with destroying any remaining fragile chances of holding the government together as Russian military reverses mounted.

As each of the pillars of monarchical support collapsed, Alexandra's handprints could be found somewhere on the side of the pillar.  She might not have had the strength to push it over alone, but she did her share of the heaving, albeit unwittingly.

The senior nobility and even some Romanovs became so disillusioned with her that they were willing to undermine the tsar's moral authority and the dynasty's reputation to get at her.  (Not only did crabby old Aunt Miechen run her mouth all over Europe, but Marie Feodorovna made astonishingly candid and disparaging comments on both Nicholas and Alexandra to foreign emissaries.  And GD Dmitri and Russia's richest heir actually turned to murder.)

The senior military commanders, having seen the tsar's performance as Supreme Commander and his malfeasance in civil government as the ministerial system became a widespread joke in the hands of his wife, came to view abandoning the tsar as the only means of avoiding military defeat.

The dominant voices in the Duma -- none of whom sought the overthrow of the monarchy -- became utterly disillusioned of being able to work with Nicholas while he listened to his wife on ministerial appointments.

Nicholas' own Council of Ministers finally despaired in the final days of getting him to accept any advice that did not come from or through his wife.  I have wondered if they did not ultimately give up on the monarchy mainly to get Alexandra and Rasputin out of their hair.

Finally, even the Orthodox Church -- and this is far too little discussed by historians -- lost faith in the monarchy due to the rise of Rasputin.  

Now one could argue that a stronger Nicholas would have alleviated the damage that could be done by a bafflingly clueless Alexandra, but the fact is that they worked off of each other -- not in all ways and not totally . . . but certainly enough for her to bear some blame for the water the regime took on and that ultimately sunk the ship of state.

Tsarfan you appear to be saying that Stolypin was a good thing for Russia? Stolypin was appointed by Nicholas as Prime Minister primarily because of his ruthless conduct whilst Governor of Saratov. Nicholas wanted a hard liner after 1905, an attack dog for the regime. Stolypin delivered and his brutal dispensing of any real legal process to deal with (execute) opponents of the regime and rig the Duma elections did anything but stabalise Russia.

Even his much feted land reforms that led to the creation of the Kulak class was very unlikely to have worked given that by it he sought to politically disenfranchise the lower classes by turning the peasants away from their communes and in effect via capitalist self interest turn them conservative. Stolypin's ultra conservatism was a reaction, it was a reaction to the chaos and breaking down of the old social order, which was an inevitable consequence of the very late, cynical and clumsy Emancipation of the Serfs.

Stolypin's tenure as prime minister shows just what a mess Russia was in before WWI. Nicholas II brought Stolypin in to firefight, ie because the 'house'/country was already on fire. One can argue that they needed to restore order but it was the combination of ruthless brutality and cynical manipulation that just made things much much worse. These were Nicholas's policies ultimately, not really even Stolypin's and certainly not Alexandra's. It was Nicholas who put Stolypin in place and his wife in charge whilst he was away at the front in WWI. It was Nicholas still who even then still had the final say in all ministerial appointments.

To use Forum Admin's analogy of the Titanic, Nicholas took charge of a ship that was already travelling blindly too fast in dangerous waters. Its true Nicholas did nothing to slow things down, in that he ALONE as Tsar given that Russia was an autocracy IS partly culpable. His wife did share in his delusions but simply did not have the influence she is credited with. Nicholas was an ultra conservative, that included chauvinism. It never occurred to him once they realised Alexei may not reach adulthood to repeal the Pauline laws of succession. Alexandra ultimately believed Nicholas was her Emperor first and husband second, that's how it worked. The best evidence of this for me has always been the lenient treatment of Rasputin's killers. That proved that if Nicholas was under the thumb of any woman, it was his mother not his wife.