Author Topic: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)  (Read 87949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2004, 06:30:58 PM »
Quote
Mary Sue posts from Texas. As a Texas resident myself, trust me, lots of Texas men have women on the side too! It isn't just "European"...


Yep, just watch reruns of Dallas or listen to country music ;)

Oh, and we have that happen here in VA too. My ex Avon lady lost her husband when he was found  with his mistress she didn't even know he had, and the woman's husband shot them both dead in the bed :-/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2004, 02:36:50 AM »
Nikolai had an excellent role model, his own father Alexander III was also faithfully commited to his marriage to his wife Maria. He was repelled by his own father's (Alexander II) longterm affair and subsequent marriage to Katya Dolgorukaya. He promised himself that he would never allow himself to do the same, because of the pain it brought to the family.

Of all the Romanov rulers, the last two Emperors of Russia were the only ones who did not stray to other pastures.

The marriage vows which Nikolai and Alexander III gave in the Orthodox church on the occassion of their marriage was held to be sacred.

Mary Sue, while Nikolai had many personal faults (as do we all), this aspect of his life was without fault. Such a virtue cannot be considered one of weakness but one of personal strength surely?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Mary Sue Thompson-Ring

  • Guest
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2004, 08:35:21 AM »
Although I 'post' a message from Texas, I am not FROM Texas.  I have been to 11 foreign countries myself.  And yes, infidelity is worldwide (especially bad in Latin America).  I mean, look at former president Clinton!  Everyone knew about he and Monica Lewinsky even before it hit the news (after all, he wrote it all down, right?)!  I confess, I like to annoy you guys because a lot of your comments on these posts ANNOY me (consider yourselves "know it alls", to the point of calling yourself "Gods", etc.).  It's great to read books, memoires, documentaries, etc., but no one REALLY knows what these people were thinking/doing 100 years ago.  100 years from now people will read the account of O.J. Simpson, find out he was found "Not Guilty" and say "The facts show that...", but I and the majority of the people in the U.S. think he was guilty.  If it weren't for the internet, I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Texas of finding relatives in Europe, etc. without traveling there, but I've found distant relatives in U.S., Canada, Europe, etc. thr.ough the internet (NO royalty, NO Romanoffs, thank God!).  The truth is, I can't monitor these posts day by day as you do.  I have a real job, support 4 other people, am concerned about friends/ family in Florida after being hit by 2 hurricanes, and I'd rather concentrate my time helping them instead of reading these posts.  I believe a previous post from... Jeremy? said it best, "don't discount clues because you don't want to accept anything new" paraphrased.  You have read your books, 'may be' excellent historians but poor detectives.

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2004, 10:19:12 AM »
Mary Sue...

   Hello --I just wanted to comment on your last post...First welcome to the site! I am so sorry if you have found anyone here to be egocentric or difficult, but most of the people here are just very interested in the Romanovs or in Russian Imperial history. No doubt their may be a few unhealthy obsessive types but such people could be found at any Web Site from Vintage Car restorers to Star Wars Fans to Video Gaming clubs.
  The fact that you are currently in Texas is not really important (I didn't even know that until you told us...  ;)) and your opinions are as valid here as anyone else's, but realize that there are a lot of serious historians here who may occasionally question your sources if you were to make some claims without any evidence (say...that the Tzar was from outer space... :o)
but we do that to almost anyone-- so its nothing personal!
    In my opinion your remark about "having a job" was crude vulgar and uncalled for ...No doubt most of the people here are working (or else they could scarely afford a computer) or are students...I'm a teacher who sends messages whenever I have  the time. Please try to be a bit more thoughtful in the future!
   I have never seen anyone here call themselves a god so I don't understand that remark at all. Sorry?
Hope to here from you soon,

Your English friend ( who is really not part of any conspiracy- honestly!)
R.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by rskkiya »

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2004, 10:21:00 AM »
Quote
I confess, I like to annoy you guys because a lot of your comments on these posts ANNOY me (consider yourselves "know it alls", to the point of calling yourself "Gods", etc.).


We don't "call ourselves Gods", it's a status anyone, even you, even OJ Simpson, can reach with 500 posts! :) If you register instead of being just a guest your posts will start to add up: first you're a newbie, then a junior member, then a senior member, then a palace member (I think) then a God. We do not put those things there ourselves. The pictures and text under them can be changed by us, but the status is done automatically by the forum itself.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2004, 12:48:44 AM »
Quote
 It's great to read books, memoires, documentaries, etc., but no one REALLY knows what these people were thinking/doing 100 years ago.


With respect Mary Sue, many here enjoy reading memoirs and historic interpretations about events and people from the past. Without these important tools we have little else to rely on. We do this not only for pleasure, but because we want to try and understand events and people who lived in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. We want to interpret and understand why the Romanov dynasty collapsed and who the key players were. Some of us have Russian background, and so these issues have some personal relevancy.

There is so much more to a book than just reading it and then putting it down, and moving on to the next one. To dismiss books simply because they were written about past events in the belief that they cannot be relied upon is an unfortunate consideration to make.

All of us who post here are citizens of the world and have a wonderful thing in common - we come here in cyber-space because we all enjoy discussing common historic issues which are described in all those contentious books -freely- , thanks to the caring efforts of Bob the F. A. and all to all those who care enough to participate.

Your impute will be appreciated, but please do not insult our participation here. Many of us have 'real' jobs, some are retired from their 'real' jobs, while others are studying so that they can obtain 'real' jobs in the future. We can all contribute our thoughts in a positive style don't you think?  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2004, 09:35:48 AM »
I didn't like the "God" status either, but that part of the BB programming cannot be changed, as was stated, it just means the ultimate level of particpation in the forum and should not be taken as any sort of ego-thing. The one thing that strikes me, personally, about Mary-sue is that for someone claiming to be a detective, she sure makes a whole lot of assumptions without information, and makes them without simply ASKING questions before leaping to conclusions
I cite just 2 examples, first ASSUMING I delete postings that I don't agree with, and second, the God status of participants....I think that's enough to show that as we say in Texas, she is "all hat and no cattle"....

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2004, 11:32:14 AM »
I had not even noticed the "God" status thing.
But does interest me, why would someone who is so annoyed by the discussions, continue to bother to read & post ?
Some folks sure are a bit  "ultra" in their devotion for my tastes, but hey, I do not have to read or listen to them if I do not care to.
Anyway,
Cheers,
Robert
wow, 11 countries, a veritable United Nations !
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2004, 12:02:54 AM »
So it seems that in time there will be many Gods (just as in ancient Rome and Greece) drifting among the mortals of the Palace.  ::)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6609
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2004, 06:39:55 PM »
Mary Sue,

Let me tell you from personal experience,  my first post was  some months ago, [April], and I didn't return to see the posts for a maybe a week.  Like you, many  of us do have lives outside this discussion board.  When I returned,  I found a flurry of remarks which were quite unkind and because I hadn't refuted some of the charges made,  the charges were followed by remarks of redicule.   I sat back and thought "WOW!"  do I really want to become a part of  this discussion board?  So, I left the site and returned the next day.  I took time to read the various threads and discovered some of the personalities of many of those who post.  So,  I returned to my post.  I reread the posts which followed mine, then took a deep breath and wrote my responce.  That was about 300  posts ago.  Since then,  I have found many new friends.  And, I just am amazed at all the knowledge that floats around this discussion board.  So,  please,  hang around and you'll discover some new friends, too.

AGRBear

« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 02:14:17 PM by Svetabel »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Arleen

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
    • View Profile
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2004, 04:51:33 PM »
Mary Sue, I have found from many years of living that the world would be horribly boring if everyone else were just like me.  VIVA LA DIFFERENCE!!  That is what makes this discussion group so FAB all of our differing opinions. Grow up.     Arleen

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6609
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2004, 04:55:31 PM »
Quote
"Someone" believed he had a mistress!
Go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/880205.stm"
[in part]

"But others in the Church have their doubts, accusing the tsar of being stubborn and weak, of clinging to power and of having a mistress."


For someone to have a mistress he has to be married.  This article indicates Nicholas II had a mistress, therefore, he was married to Alexandra.  Therefore, this article is not referring to his lovers prior to his marraige.

This statement has upset some of you.  

These are not Mary Sue's words.   She has merely shown you and I the article and then has made her opinion which many of you do not agree.

After I read the article,  I remember having read somewhere a "rumor" about this subject.   I am not one who repeats rumor, however, let me throw out this theory:

Nicholas II needed an heir.  His future and his family's future depended upon there being an heir.  His family  [mother and uncles] insisted he set aside his marriage with Alexandra or take a mistress who could produce a heir.  To add to this,  the doctors had told Nicholas II that Alexandra might die if she were to have another child.  Nicholas II was caught between a rock and a hard place.

It is difficult for us in the year 2004 to understand the pressure Nicholas II had upon his need of a heir.

In our time,  we have seen Prince Charles marrying Diane and having beautiful sons while still in love with a woman with whom he could not have as his wife who could have produce a heir to the throne.

Catherine II of Russia had taken a lover to survive.....

Remember I am speaking in theory that Nicholas II may had no other avenue but to take a mistress....

OR:

Someone could ask someone who knows the church men, whom the article refers,  and ask them why there is mention of "mistress".   This might not be true.  Perhaps, this article has given us false information.  Wouldn't be the first time something we've read wasn't accurate.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2004, 05:23:00 PM »
Well, now, there was no shortage of heirs male Romanov availablre then, and it would not have been the first time that the crown passes other than father-son. Or even otherwise came close to it.
I just do not see Nicholas having a "side"  to produce an heir.  He was far too devoted to his family for that.
As for Charles & camilla, their big stupidity was not marrying before either of them married others. Camilla obviously had no problem reproducing.
My thoughts on the matter.
Robert
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2004, 07:53:10 PM »
An illegitimate child, born to a morganitc mother could not be an heir to the throne. So this can not be a motive for any "affair".

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6609
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Mathilde Kschessinska (1872 - 1971)
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2004, 11:09:18 AM »
There have been  an occasion or two where a child has been slipped into a crib with claims of being the rightful heir.   If done secretly,  there are no questions asked or debate if it is the child of the monarch.  Catherine II is a good example.

Nicholas II evidently did love his wife.  I've never question this but there was a great deal of pressure on him to have a heir.   It was mentioned on another thread that it was about this time that Alexandra, who was being blamed for this failure, was going through so much emotional pressure that she had thought she was pregnant not once but several times.

True,  there were many male Romanovs who could have taken up the position as heir, his brother Michael being one,  but done were Nicholas II's son and heir.

My questions are:  Why does this particular article which Mary Sue provided us talk about Nicholas II having a mistress?  If false then why are the church members discussing this issue?  Perhaps this article is based on false information.  Like I suggested,  someone needs to ask the right people so we can know the truth and give a statement to refute this particular article.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152