Author Topic: Theory on Alexandra's children  (Read 28570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2006, 03:22:23 PM »
Gospidine Grace,

The understanding of these threads is that : not everyone agrees with everyone else. You are correct in your understanding,
it is personal opinion !  Indeed !   ;) The world would not be globally named, if people all were the same. It would not provide the ability and or a forum where we might agree to disagree ....  ;)


Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2006, 12:35:33 PM »
I don't say that he didn't use them for political purposes, but that it is not as much as these authors might say. I think they over emphasize it. And there is a distinction between private and public photos. I think the public photos did serve political purposes, but it wasn't as much as some authors suggest, some sort of public relations thing, that would be more modern than that era, and it isn't the way that Nicholas thought. So my view, is that they served some political purpose, but that it gets very overstated.

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2006, 12:38:34 PM »
Imperial Angel,

Again, one has to remember if these books were written by those for or against the IF, as well before or after the Revolution. If after, all the more it would be political identifiably, to make sure the reader would see their present political point. Everyone before, during, and after the revolution had their own political needs. Naturally the one in control gave the last parting long lasting political shots. But presently, the feelings have changed considerably in Russia, and those pictures are very much asked for today. As always it matters from whose perspective, or what perspective one wishes to hold on to.  ;) By the way, all places of power since time immorial has always promoted the importance of 'family, and their heads of state', in one way or another. Photography came along and just helped to offer photogenic personalities, and from there, people being people, found and used a new source to share these wonderful pictures. Who cares for what purpose it was used; the importance is that these lovely pictures of these illustrious children and families, remain, and can be seen, shared, enjoyed regardless of whatever purpose it was taken for initially !

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Ra-Ra-Rasputin

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2006, 01:38:40 PM »
I don't say that he didn't use them for political purposes, but that it is not as much as these authors might say. I think they over emphasize it. And there is a distinction between private and public photos. I think the public photos did serve political purposes, but it wasn't as much as some authors suggest, some sort of public relations thing, that would be more modern than that era, and it isn't the way that Nicholas thought. So my view, is that they served some political purpose, but that it gets very overstated.

Ok, well what authors are you referring to here? What do you find overblown about their statements?
Obviously there is a massive distinction between public and private photos.  The private photos were never meant to be seen by the public, so I find it hard to see how anyone can read anything political into those.

I find it interesting that you see 'public relations' as a more modern thing; how do you think monarchs made themselves popular in the past? They appealed to their people, that's how! Public relations, whether using modern media or not, have always been there and have always been very important to people in public roles.  Before photography, paintings were used to circulate a popular image of the monarch.  I've seen celebratory cutlery and chinaware going back as far as the Stuart times depicting monarchs. These are all methods of public relations; getting your image out there, and presenting yourself as you would like to be seen. 

Nicholas was wise in seeing that he could use the advances in technology surrounding photography to improve his public relations.  The sheer amount of photographs of himself and his family that were publically issued surely proves how effective a tool Nicholas considered this type of public relations, or even marketing, we could call it. 

Public relations is NOT in any way a modern concept.  The human race has been busy showing itself off in the best light possible since the days of the wheel, my dear.

Rachel
xx
'History teaches that history teaches us nothing' ~ Hegel

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2006, 01:45:37 PM »
To be quite fair, I also believe that there is a difference between private and public photographs. There are countless leaders, and known personas past, to present who decidedly have made it quite plain of what they want offered to the public and what they consider private, and that goes for photographs, drawings, paintings, etc.  ;) and that goes even into that of moving pictures, and audio, etc. Everyone has their preferences, and as monarchs, I suppose they were able to see through what was offered in that of public display, etc., and or to be held back privately.


Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2006, 02:21:53 PM »

I find it interesting that you see 'public relations' as a more modern thing; how do you think monarchs made themselves popular in the past?


Exactly.

Elizabeth I of England used her heavily-staged annual progresses through her kingdom both to display her power and to put a personal face on it.  She subsidized poets to regale her subjects with the virtues of her sex life (or, rather, the supposed absence of it) as the Virgin Queen.  Maria Theresa almost bankrupted her treasury to expand and speed the final construction of her family retreat at Schonbrunn in time to use it as a diplomatic tool to advertise her power and wealth going into negotiations at the end of the War of the Austrian Succession.  Louis XIV received foreign ambassadors on the magnificent escalier des ambassadeurs, with his family arrayed behind him to convey his power and the strength of his dynasty.  Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette dined once a week behind a railing as the Paris population filed past to observe the pomp and the domesticity of their monarchs.  Kings have been putting their faces on their coinage since time immemorial to put a personal face on their reigns.  (It is Cleopatra's coinage that has allowed the identification of certain statutes as images of the last pharaoh.)  Nicholas' own predecessors decorated Russian cities with statues of themselves in martial poses to convey their power and personal prowess.

Photography was nothing more than a new technological manifestation of a very old political stratagem.  There is no censure or moral judgment attached to this observation.  It's simply what astute people in power have always done . . . and still do.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #66 on: November 08, 2006, 03:50:55 PM »
I have not read that article yet, but I will respond anyway. I think that there were obviously private photos that we know of, and that these are actually most of the ones we know and admire today. The other ones are the are the public formal photos that we don't really esteem as much as we do the private ones. These are the photos, that according to some, were politically motivated. Of course, the term and formal study of public relations is fairly modern, I admit it was present then, but it wasn't called so, nor was it as formally a strategy as later. I have read books on public relations, but maybe I get it confused with marketing, since I have read stuff on that too, a few years ago.  ;)

I think that rulers have always wanted to show themselves to the people, in their best light, but that this is often not a formal strategy. To me, Nicholas may have wanted to show his family in the best light, but he didn't have some kind of formal strategy of public relations to make the monarchy look better or be more relatable. That goes into the realm of the politically motivated- and while I do concede that certainly it might have ended up being public relations thus, ''political'', it wasn't thought of like that. I just can't be that scholarly, if you will. I can't remember specific books, but there is that one refered to by one poster, and there is another, maybe?

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2006, 10:32:12 AM »
Tongue in cheek? It sounds a bit like the scientific study carried out over here a while ago which looked into why cornflakes go soggy when you put milk on them ;D

Yes, I think however legitimate this study was, it most likely doesn't have that much basis.

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2006, 11:29:58 AM »
Yes Imperial Angel, back to the thread topic "theory on Alexandra's children".  IN your opinion, do you think that Tatiana looked more like Alexandra or the two younger children.  I have ofter read Tatiana resembled her mother more, but I think Anastasia and Alexi do.  Olga definitely looked like NII.  I'm undecided about Tatiana.

What do you think?

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2006, 11:35:26 AM »
Public images of monarchy that are released by the monarchy are deliberate attempts to shape the image of the monarchy. Any image of Nicholas, Alexandra and the children that appeared was through the permission and cooperation of the monarch, so that kind of rules out the idea that it might not have been a planned public relations campaign.

What on earth is the problem with it being planned public relations? I might add that you can substitute the words "President Bush" or "Prime Minister Blair" or "President Putin" in the first sentence for "monarchy", and it is still true.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #70 on: November 09, 2006, 11:52:19 AM »
Well, some people say that Tatiana's looks were more Hessian, which was true of Alexei and Anastasia, although Anastasia looked Romanov as well.Marie has looks that always remind me of Alexandra and the Romanov genes of Alexander III, she wanted to have many children, and her looks would most likely have made her have beautiful daughters if the theory is true... ;) As for Tatiana, I think she was more like the Romanovs than not, just look at photos of her and Irina; she resembled Irina so much.

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #71 on: November 09, 2006, 12:32:06 PM »
Yes, Irina! :)   I was trying to think of another Romanov she resembled.  I can see that.  Marie was definitely considered classically Russian.  I think the quote is "all milk and blood"  or something like that. Meaning healthy and beautiful in true Russian fashion.  And I think she did most resemble her grandfather in build and looks. I can see Anastasia being both but the line of the mouth and the nose of both her and Alexei in certain pictures I've seen, I think looks more like Alix.  Do you think any of them resemble Minnie or her family in anyway?

Offline princessvonhessen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2007, 11:16:44 PM »
I think it is unfair to suggest that the Romanov daughters inherited their beauty only from Alexandra .
In my opinion her sisters Victoria and Irene were not beauties either. Ella certainly was and we can't make that judgement about May. Alexandra herself, was a beautiful child, but she did not age well. As for Princess Alice, she wasn't a beauty either, nor were her sisters with the exception of Louise. Nicholas's mother was a pretty woman, and her sister Queen Alexandra of England was a great beauty. Nicholas himself was a good looking man who resembled his mother.

Offline moonlight_tsarina

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
    • Inside the Palace Gates
Re: Theory on Alexandra's children
« Reply #73 on: November 04, 2010, 03:03:10 PM »
I also believe this to be tosh...however it is fun to think about!
Check out my site!

www.freewebs.com/moonlight_tsarina

"Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil...but only love." -Olga Nikolayevna