I think that MF and AF would have had a much better relationship! MF could have kept her jewels and her royal precedence for some time, allowing AF to get adjusted to Russia, motherhood, and court life. Nicky would not have been caught between wife and mother because his mother would have still been doting on AIII. AF would not have needed to be number 1 at court because she would have had more of her husband to herself.
For I must confess that I get a bit annoyed sometimes when I get to read the same negative judgements about the Romanovs again and again on this forum. Those judgments are often written down with a certainty that isn't fully justified in my opinion. All we have is written information from various sources. No matter how hard people have tried to write down their impressions of the IF and their relatives in a unbiased way, their impressions are just their impressions and will be biased inevitably. And though we may have information from a large number of sources, all this information together can never replace personal encounters with the people involved. As we will never know them like we know our own relatives for instance, I'd rather not pass a final judgement on them.
And of course, this does not only apply to negative judgements but also to idolizing remarks. ;)
Those judgments are often written down with a certainty that isn't fully justified in my opinion. All we have is written information from various sources. No matter how hard people have tried to write down their impressions of the IF and their relatives in a unbiased way, their impressions are just their impressions and will be biased inevitably. And though we may have information from a large number of sources, all this information together can never replace personal encounters with the people involved. As we will never know them like we know our own relatives for instance, I'd rather not pass a final judgement on them.Yes, this is exactly what I have often said myself. We can only speculate what these people were like based on what others have written about them, and based on their own letters and diaries, which are also subjective. But we will never know anything about them because we will never meet them and know them personally.
For I must confess that I get a bit annoyed sometimes when I get to read the same negative judgements about the Romanovs again and again on this forum.
And of course, this does not only apply to negative judgements but also to idolizing remarks. ;)
Still its a free world too, and everyone has a right to his or her opinion.
This doesn't mean we have to idolise them or curb unsavoury comments, even if they may be true.
I think this site definitely idolizes them. Most definitely.
The thing with history is that it is unprovable, unlike some things in other disciplines that can be proven (physics, chemistry, etc.). There are no absolute truths in history as such, there are only theories based on evidence. We can speculate and come up with theories (aka "tentative" personal conslusions). Hence challenges are absolutely necessary, just like in any other discipline for that matter. Some people see challenges as a very negative thing, and possibly due to personal insecurities they take them as an insult to their intelligence. But challenges are the basis of learning, and everyone who wants to voice an opinion publically must be prepared to be challenged and must be ready to defend his or her theory/opinion.
but I would challenge you on the notion that there are no absolute truths in history whatsoever. There are dates, for example. And there are victors and victims, to give another. I know it's fashionable these days to say that there are no absolute truths in the humanities, but I disagree when it comes to this field at least... if there were not some absolute truths, we would not be able to study history at all.
I would challenge you on the notion that there are no absolute truths in history whatsoever. There are dates, for example. And there are victors and victims, to give another.I'll accept that, Elisabeth, although this is not quite what I meant when I was talking about "absolutes". I was referring more to the interpretations we make based on the data available to us, and not the data itself. In some disciplines the conclusions we can make are more "absolute" than in other fields, and the data cannot be "fenagled" (for the lack of better term) as much as in others. I don't know if I am making myself clear, maybe not.
I'll accept that, Elisabeth, although this is not quite what I meant when I was talking about "absolutes". I was referring more to the interpretations we make based on the data available to us, and not the data itself. In some disciplines the conclusions we can make are more "absolute" than in other fields, and the data cannot be "fenagled" (for the lack of better term) as much as in others. I don't know if I am making myself clear, maybe not.
Or, maybe not! :)So if Alexandra appeared ugly or deformed prior to her demise -- then we would not care about her?
Whenever a beautiful, prominent, and young (or comparatively young) woman dies under tragic or mysterious circumstances, a certain amount of romance and/or mythmaking attaches itself to her, i.e., Mary Stuart, Eva Peron, Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana, Marie Antoinette, Amelia Earheart, Cleopatra, Princess Kaiulani, etc.
Problem: hypocrisey is not deliberate. Alexandra was hypocritical (aren't we all, in some area or another?).
Bluetoria
I MUST DISAGREE!
If Alix was not anti semetic then why did she read The Protocals Of Zion and The Great in The Small two notorious works of anti semetic propaganda!
You are quite deluded by suggesting that she was not anti semetic.
rskkiya
"the thing about Alix is that she is totally exposed, her most intimate thoughts, her weaknesses, her strengths, her most private affairs as a woman, her greatest moments of beauty, her most tragic moments of disillusionment and defeat, and still she stands as a woman of heroic proportions in spite of her mistakes and this is perhaps because of the fact that she was never acting a part but was genuinely being herself and striving to live up to her highest concept of what was right."
This is one of the most insightful and lovely posts about Alix IMO that I have ever heard -- And thank you Griffh for having said what I could never put into words so well!
:)
Janet R.
The quotes can be found in her last Diary (printed rather recently) which unfortunately I have returned to my library... but I will be happy to check the text out again and print all the information here..
She also, as I wrote before, went to great lengths to encourage the aristocracy to become involved in meaningful work, which would benefit the people, & she donated large sums of her own money (anonymously!!!) to those in need.
My real beef with Alexandra is that she came from one of the most politically- and socially-englightened royal lines in Europe and, landing in Russia, became one of the most ardent supporters of an outmoded autocracy that sought to deny everyone participation in how they were governed.
Even if Alexandra had shared her aunt's liberal ideals or posessed her level of brain power, I'm not sure she could have accomplished much in Russia.... but I'm really perplexed at the rabid hatred some people on this board display toward Alexandra Feodrovna. It really is way out of proportion compared to some of the other characters in the last days of imperial Russia. It really reminds me so much of the RABID hatred some freaks in the United States feel today toward Hillary Clinton. You would think these people cook and eat small children for breakfast, lunch and dinner, the way people foam at the mouth about them. Ditto the way some Brits feel about Queen Elizabeth -- I'm just amazed at the level of hatred directed at the royals, especially by the British media.
And please, don't feed me any crap about how he killed Rasputin for the good of Russia. He did it for kicks and he knew he would get away with it because of who he was.
How come reading the Protocols of Zion makes one anti-semitic?
Umm RichC ...?
I don't HATE Alix - I think she may have been mentally ill. I have posted two or three times that some of her better virtues were in her organizational work to establish numerous hospitals and ad hoc mash units during the war.
As far as Felix...well HE thought that he was saving Russia by attempting to kill Rasputin (yes it doesn't appear 'rational' to me either) nevertheless that was his claim - you may have a point about it masking something else entirely.
I actually dislike Nicholas and Alexandra equally - but as I am way off topic - I shall stop now.
rskkiya
Here is what King and Wilson say:
Page 175 FOTR: "Incarceratd in the Ipatiev House, Nicholas read "War and Peace" for the first time, along with the workds of popular satirist Michael Saltykov-Shchedrin, and, mor ominously, a biography of the murdered Emperor Paul !. In addition to the religious works, another favorite was "The Great and the Small and the Coming of the Antichrist," an incendiary, rabidly anti-Semitic work by Serge Nilus; although Nicholas had disavowed the book when confronted with evidence that the OkHrana had helped forge its infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," he frequently read Nilus's book aloud to his family in both Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg, nothing that is made for "very timely reading."
No. You just called her an anti-semite! That's all. A claim you can't even back up.
THis is supposed to be a thread about her POSITIVE traits.
You quoted a diary entry from one of Alexandra's pregnancies. Lexi was quoting a recitation of an event years later.
RichC, we have discussed ad nauseum the antisemitism of the Romanovs. It's pretty clear that like most Russians in their time, they were antisemites, both from a religious perspective (Jews are said to be christ-killers) and a racial perspective (they thought Jews were a race). Alexandra was no different.
I am interested that while I as a Jew can accept this and still consider the positive aspects of Alexandra and be fascinated by the Romanovs, you are having a difficult time.
This is an incorrect statement please see my previously mentioned posts - as well as the scholarship of Fuhrmann, Figes and Crankshaw.
The fact is that you cannot find any scholarly work that says Alexandra was an anti-Semite because there isn't enough evidence. No responsible scholar is going to say that. Do you understand that?
This is an incorrect statement please see my previously mentioned posts - as well as the scholarship of Fuhrmann, Figes and Crankshaw.
Rich C, you do not have to admit that Alix was anti semetic - she may have had other pleasant qualities ... please do espress them here!
Where is the evidence of her legislation for jewish right? A source please!
The facts remain the same
rskkiya
REREAD my posts .
Well, a number of the snippets you posted on the other thread aren't even about Jews at all. They are about freemasons, not Jews.
REREAD my posts .
In the Protocals, freemasons were considered the puppets of the "Jewish conspiracy" [three post refer to freemasons, the rest were regarding the jews] and I am familiar with the issue of the emigrated jew that Alix discusses in the letter - YES, I POSTED IT! She is more charitable there than in other comments - yet she continues to make antisemetic comments elsewhere in later letters.
I would recommend that you read these letters Rich C, you would find the text very interesting. It's also true that many people today and in the last 80 years still express antisemitic views, I won't argue that fact.She was a creature of her time. But that doesn't change the evidence.
Do you have a source for your claim that she tried to pass "legislation" to liberate russian jews...as a historian and scholar I am honestly interested in any evidence that you possess. It could make for an interesting positive trait but only if you can document it.
positive trait She tried to take care of her family inspite of her own difficult emotional and physical health, and she wanted her daughters to fall happily in love, as she did.
rs
PS, RichC, PLEASE join me on the Anti semitism thread so that we can discuss this further there.!i
Here's an excerpt from a letter written by Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich (Sandro) to his brother Nicholas Mikhailovich, February 14, 1917. It's an accounting of Sandro's meeting with Nicholas and Alexandra at Tsarskoe Selo:
In my conversation with A and N, I also touched on two subjects, which have been raised by Protopopov, the expropriation of landowners' land in favor of the peasants and equal rights for the Jews. It's typical that Alix did not voice any protest on these questions, while he objected to the first and then appeared confused about the second, replying that it was equality only n the sense of a widening of the Pale of Settlement; I protested as strongly as I could, saying that concessions or new rights for the Jews were unthinkable, that we could not afford to be merciful to a race which the Russian people hate even more now because of their negative attitude towards the war and outright treason; it was noticeable that Alix didn't protest, obviously such projects do exist.
In my conversation with A and N, I also touched on two subjects, which have been raised by Protopopov, the expropriation of landowners' land in favor of the peasants and equal rights for the Jews. It's typical that Alix did not voice any protest on these questions, while he objected to the first and then appeared confused about the second, replying that it was equality only n the sense of a widening of the Pale of Settlement; I protested as strongly as I could, saying that concessions or new rights for the Jews were unthinkable, that we could not afford to be merciful to a race which the Russian people hate even more now because of their negative attitude towards the war and outright treason; it was noticeable that Alix didn't protest, obviously such projects do exist.
It's clear from this evidence that Alexandra supported equal rights for the Jews in early 1917.
Please, take the anti-semitism discussion over to the appropriate thread. This thread is for discussion of Alexandra's postive traits. Please stay closer to topic.
Thanks
FA
Sure. Show me objective, factual proof that she advocated for this.
Positive traits please...
there's another thread for this...
I'm sorry, but neglecting to deny something is not advocating it. NOT a positive trait.
Protopopov would never have proposed such a law without Alexandra's support, at least. Alexandra (and Nicholas) knew very well how much opposition such a project would generate -- that's why they were so close-mouthed in the meeting with Sandro.
I find this letter utterly confusing.
Take the land reform question that Sandro mentioned. If Alexandra's silence is taken to mean that there was a proposal and she knew of it, that means either that Nicholas was lying or that he knew nothing of it.
So . . . were major pieces of legislation being discussed with Alexandra of which Nicholas knew nothing?
This just goes to show how the right intentions and reasonable desires can still lead one to do the wrong thing!
She was just good? Hmmm... when Stolypin died, her behavior seems anything but good. In fact, his widow took some relatively drastic measures to ensure the Romanovs would not enter the room during his last minutes and I've read in Kurth's book that Alexandra had this to say:
"... his destiny was fulfilled.... Believe me, one must not feel sorry for those who are no more." Kurth concluded, "There was one reason above all others for Alexandra's unfeeling dismissal of the man who had done so much to preserve her husband's reign: Stolypin had had the courage to take on Rasputin.
Now, I find it hard to equate goodness with this sort of behavior which to all intents and purposes smacks of: well... he got his just desserts.
Alexandra had her mother's trait of wanting to be of practical help to others instead of being a ceremonial figurehead at charity events. She took care of her babies hands-on, not the usual for her day. She trained as a nurse, doing any task assigned after completing her training as a middle-aged woman with a history of sciatica. She cared more about her childrens' happiness than the tidiness of her personal rooms. She hoped her children would marry for love. She was an animal lover, which very often indicates a compassionate nature in people. She had a deep faith in God and a deep streak of spirituality that was not fashionable. She had a large capacity for friendship. Like her maternal grandmother, she cherished the sentiment behind an object more than its intrinsic value. She was adventuresome enough to embrace the Style Moderne when it was hardly mainstream.
She was a marriage partner in a genuine love relationship that survived everything that Fate could throw at it. Despite all her flaws, large and small, Nicholas loved her as much or more on the night they died together as the day he married her. That alone makes her story extraordinary.
Alexanndra's intentions were good, and sometimes she may not have had her actions match her intentions as much as they perhaps ought to have, but this true of all of us. She and Nicholas did love each other to the end, and their letters prove this. They had a good relationship, which it seems to me was something that could never break, although they argued from time to time like any other married couple, as stated in another thread. I don't think we need to question this. She left an a impact on history, and indeed she was a good person.
Now, I find it hard to equate goodness with this sort of behavior which to all intents and purposes smacks of: well... he got his just desserts.
What puzzles me, however, is an inconsistency in your posts. You bring to our attention that we will never be able to know whether Nicholas and Alix expressed their true - positive - feelings about each other in their letters, and you're right in this. But just a few posts earlier, you were not so careful in choosing your words when giving a cyncial negative interpretation to Alix's words after Stolypin's death and assuming that she had bad intentions.
I picked up a book in the Springfield MA public library about 30 years ago that even then made me laugh. I don't remember the title or the author, but I will never forget that the first page began (I can't quote exacatly) "The fault for all of the problems that befell the House of Romanov and the Russian people lay directly at the feet of the Empress Alexandra."
How's that for twisted history???
Wow!! Marie Feodorovna must have been an awesome historical person! No wonder alot of the Russian people loved her. Thanks so much for the information. I think right from the start, Marie saw the kind of person Alix was, and didn't really want Nicholas to marry her. Maybe she knew (Marie) what was going to happen if the two of them got married.
AF a socialite! I'm sorry -- but it does bring a smile to the face.
Ortino - you describe MF as decadent. Decadent? How so, please?
Russia had had German Tsarinas for generations; why was all the blame put on Alexandra's head? Because she was an easy scapegoat, that's why, and it seems to me that she was used as one from the very beginning.
in England Alexandra would most likely have pretty popular as a consort.
Yes, I would be friends with her. For me: Loyalty is a must.
While I agree with all that CountessKate stated, I believe that Alexandra would have indeed made a better English consort. I don't think it would have necessarily made her more popular, but she would have been better suited nonetheless. Although born a German princess, it is clear that her leanings were always English. Her tastes, opinions, and reserved personality all reflect the English lifestyle and obviously therefore could never coincide with Russian ones. Looking back, even though Eddy was a tad crazy, I think she would have been better off marrying him than Nicholas.
Eddy may not have been ideal king material, Ortino, but he was certainly not crazy in any way. I think you may be a little short on info regarding him?
My personal feeling is that Alexandra would have made a poor queen/empress consort for any of the European countries as she just doesn't seem to me to have been good consort material. For Russia, she proved to be totally disastrous. If she had been in England, the governmental structure meant that she would have had no opportunity to influence political decisions, so her whole sphere would have been in the social/public arena, where she clearly demonstrated ineptitude even before her increasing isolation from Russian society. The role of the consort in Europe (including Russia) was (1) to produce healthy heirs, gender depending on country but at the time male was preferred even where not required and (2) to support the monarch, politically depending on country but foremost socially/publically.
If she had been 'just' a socialite, she would have been a much better consort whether she was in Russia or England, in my view.
It's interesting that Alexandra gravitated towards those she could mother. Her closest friends were either younger than her or very needy people, towards whom she acted as a mother or older sister. Alexandra wasn't really a 'friend' in the way I view a friend, she was more like a carer, and I wouldn't want to be fussed over and treated like a child by my friend.
Alexandra's inability to wake up and smell the coffee would be very irritating for me. One personality trait I cannot stand in other people is ignorance.
[size=14]One would never have had the oppurtunity to befriend the Empress of all the Russias and in fact the entire concept would have been viewed as rude, presumtuous and in direct conflict with the protocol of the Imperial Court. One would have had to wait to be invited to speak with the Empress and then if she found the company pleasing, she might have invited the interesting guest back to the palace for another social encounter. After many such encounters, the Empress might have taken one into her confidence. The offering of friendship was an entirely unilateral matter.
David[/size][/b]
Quote[size=14]One would never have had the oppurtunity to befriend the Empress of all the Russias and in fact the entire concept would have been viewed as rude, presumtuous and in direct conflict with the protocol of the Imperial Court. One would have had to wait to be invited to speak with the Empress and then if she found the company pleasing, she might have invited the interesting guest back to the palace for another social encounter. After many such encounters, the Empress might have taken one into her confidence. The offering of friendship was an entirely unilateral matter.
David[/size][/b]
The technicalities of actually befriending the Empress are not in play here--this is entirely hypothetical and should be viewed as such. Evidently you missed the point of the thread.
....Humour certainly has a place on a site like this, and I have been hugely entertained in the past by the wit and repartee amongst those posting their comments. But the dividing line between humour and rudeness is easily crossed, and philosophical debate can sometimes look like pseudo-intellectual clap-trap if not carefully honed.
I am sorry that Ortino was hurt and perhaps David should be generous and consider this situation in a different light and extend his apology?
Alexandra had flaws, we all do. But she was someone, who I at least, believe had good intentions, amd most of the time it turned out ok.
... Also, Alexandra is often referred to in contemporary literature as 'the German', etc. Were there any German customs she clung onto? I know she spoke German, but did she ever choose to speak it to anyone? Did she read German novels? Did she correspond with anyone in Germany? ...When writing to German relatives or friends who were more fluent in German than in English, she often wrote in German. Many letters to her sister-in-law, Grand-Duchess Eleonore, and to Margarete von Fabrice were in the German language.
I don't think, from my knowledge that Alexandra was much influenced by German culture, ...The English influences are indeed undeniable. It's true that she spent a lot of time in England, but based on my information, I'ld say she spent the larger part of the year in Germany, not in Great Britain, when she was young. Her visits to England and Scotland usually lasted a couple of weeks, not months and months on end. Also, when she referred to 'home' in her younger years, she was always referring to Darmstadt and Wolfsgarten, not to Great Britain.
She was raised more in England despite being technically a German princess, so her home, in many real ways was England when she was young. ...
Did she read the great Russian writers, or enjoy Russian music and the ballet?
I know I've read somewhere that Alexandra considered herself to be a Russian woman after her conversion to Orthodoxy, and her assumption of the role of a Russian Empress, and she certainly embraced a lot of typically Russian cultural traditions, such as the intense spirituality and mysticism that Russia is famous for. However, I don't believe that her attachment to Russia ever went beyond religion. Did she read the great Russian writers, or enjoy Russian music and the ballet? Alexandra was always unpopular with the Russians; is this because her behaviour was so alien to their culture? Do you think it would ever have been possible for Alexandra to truly become a Russian anyway? Can you give your heart and soul to another country than the one you were born in? I don't think I could.
Rachel
xx
Well, I am sure that Alexandra cared about her homeland; who doesn't? Her blood was pretty much German, but the British Royal Family were more of an influence on her than anything in Darmstadt ever was. ....
I suspect that if Alexandra thought of her cultural roots, then she would have perhaps thought of herself as Hessian rather than German - which in those days might have meant Prussian.
I think that's what I was trying to say by using the word "continental"; I think for many members of the royal families of Europe, it was their membership in that exclusive club that shaped them as opposed to one particular cultural background. An admittedly weak analogy would be today's culture of international celebrities.
That being said, why was it so easy for her to dismiss the cultural influence of English constitutional government? I understand that she might have thought that Russia wasn't ready for it, but she seems to have wholeheartedly embraced the idea of autocracy.
Can anyone imagine an English princess of 1894 who would seriously have maintained the divine right of kings?
... She may have been more inclined to believe in autocracy than not, despite her background. That could be a factor as well, I think. She may not have been so much of her background as we might think. ...I can vaguely remember that I once read an account of a heated discussion between Alix and Sergei and/or Ella about the pros and cons of autocracy and democracy. This discussion supposedly took place at Illinskoe in 1890. Alix was said to have argued that a democratic, constitutional monarchy like the British monarchy was the system to be preferred, whereas Sergei (or Ella?) pointed out that the Russian people were not ready for democracy. Does anyone know more details of this discussion/argument?
Sadly, that's not something she ever realize- it is quite sad. But, she honestly thought she was fulfilling her role as consort, and she thought that she was doing what she could. She thought she was doing a good job of being consort in the public sphere, but indeed, her actions may not have looked to others as they did to herself.
Someone mentioned earlier about what she was like in Hesse. I don't know much about her young adult life, but I read the biography on her by Greg King. It seemed to me that her family was obsessed with death. Her mother was when her brother died. Her grandmother (who was a fine leader, but I wouldn't have wanted her for a mother) was after Prince Albert died. There was always constant mourning. No wonder she had such a sense of fatalism. I think mourning is healthy, but at some point you have to move on a little bit.
I think we can all agree that Alix was a very complex person. Some liked her, some did not. That's how it is for most of us, except her life was played out on a very public scale which will be analyzed for years to come.
Also after 1901, with the death of QV, Alix no longer had a maternal advisor. Someone who would have surely been able to reign her in w/the hemophilia and Rasputin situation. The ONLY one in my opinion who could have dealt w/Alix would have been QV.
Her sister Ella was closer to Alexandra than Queen Victoria was, much closer. Yet, in the end when Ella tried to reason with Alexandra, about Rasputin and other problems, Alexandra coldly dismissed her. "She threw me out like a dog" I believe was Ella's comment. So, why would Alexandra have listened to Queen Victoria. She would have simply written that the queen didn't understand the true situation and ignored any advice she got.
Call it stress, post traumatic stress syndrome, whatever you like. I still think she was emotionally ill and frequently wrong.
Well, she wasn't ruler of the country. She was the consort. If she had been the ruler in charge of the country, what you say would certainly be applicable. She was also certainly suffering from emotional illness later, although it is true that she was more prone to that in her essential nature than say Ella, I don't feel that was present to began with, although I agree she was fragile. She was not suited by personality for a position such as consort, and the circumstances in which she was consort worsened things.
Very true.I wonder about this given QV's allowing John Brown to have so much run of the house. It just seems like Alix was following her lead in choice of controversial friends.
Imo, listening to Rasputin or even having him around, would have absolute HORRIFIED the Queen. Had she been alive and in her prime, Alix certainly might have had a better perspective of her situation. :)
There has been extensive discussion on other threads about the purported secrecy surrounding Alexei's illness. But the cat was clearly out of the bag by 1912 when a story on Alexei's "bleeding disease" and its frequency among Victoria's progeny ran in The New York Times, if I remember correctly. The article is posted on the main AP website.
If only Alexei had not suffered from heamophilia, everything could have been different and there would have been none of Rasputins damaging influence!!!!
... would you befriend her?
... would you befriend her?
To be honest, I don't think so. She was a little too closed minded for my taste, and too much on the self-righteous side. But she probably wouldn't have befriended me either! ;)
I am going by the letters she would write to Nicholas, where she would upbraid one person or another, saying they don't know what they are doing, etc., while of course she always knew the right thing to do... All based on superstitions or some other such nonsense. I think she even used to criticize Stolypin, who was probably the best thing that happened to Russia at the time, under the circumstances... Another example is when she spoke out against the constitution and told Nicholas that he should never give in to it, when it was obvious that it was the right thing to do at the time. She criticized Grand Duke Nicholas and played a big role in convincing her husband to take over the command of the army from of him... which was a disastrous decision, I think. But she never saw any errors on her part and kept on being convinced right up until the end that she was always right...
I think of the lines from the movie N and A "Oh Nicky, what a mess I make of things..."
I think of the lines from the movie N and A "Oh Nicky, what a mess I make of things..."
Except that in real life, I don't think she ever saw it that way... She continued thinking she was right all along,
and if anyone thought differently than she did, she saw him/her as her "enemy". This is what I meant by her being closed minded and self righteous...
Actually, as Annie has said, I have found that I am very like her in a number of ways. I would tire of endless balls. I would not condone endless gossip. I would want to do something positive to help the poor and not just lip service to a charity that I gave my name to.
History shows that Alix, while she was shy and introverted in some ways, was the dominant one in the Imperial relationship. Nicholas pursued her with a single mindedness that was awe inspiring, but then that one streak of independence disappeared and from the very beginning of their relationship, she was the one to "forgive".
as loulia said:
"she was a very strong woman to manage to ever keep her husband madly in love with her and in the same time raise five children, take care of Alexei health and deal with her job as Czarina of the biggest country in the world!! "
Of course we know that she handled the "job as Tsaritsa of the biggest country in the world" quite badly, but she was a very complicated and interesting person.
Just my opinion of her...
Alexandra, to me, seemed to think she was better than everyone else. (If she did, not her fault really, since she was probably raised to believe it.) She even said Bloody Sunday "had to be done."
I think that Alexandra was one of the most tragic figures in history. The love match between NII and AF worked BECAUSE she was the strong one. In his diaries she wrote in the margins something to the effect that she would be strong for him. Being raised German and brough up English ill prepared the princess for the culture and court of Imperial Russia. Having no precedent, she was intimidated by her position in the beginning and gave off the air of arrogance. When IMO, I feel that her real concern was a true family life. .... Maybe Alix concentrated more on family life than her duties as Empress. Not to mention being the carrier of hemophilia.
So IMO I think she was misunderstood and very wrong for the job of Empress. But completely right for the wife of Nicky
Nothing at all new or startling revealed there at all.Thank you, Dmitri. :) I'm glad to hear that you did know then that critical comments on the instability of the Russian throne before 1894 and the poor preparation that Nicholas got were not without foundation.
RonnieLee - I agree with you. Unfortunately, Alexandra had character flaws but don't we all? And it's also unfortunate that she ended up in a country with a very precarious situation.
i have just been watching this video 'http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl7VnQeu8OQ' its about the IF execution with clips taken from several films. if you watch it you will notice that in each of the film Alexandra is portrayed as being 'snobbish' or 'insensitive'.
i know that she had her moments but i see her a caring, sensitive woman.
what do you think?
I really think that some stories are nothing than highly exagerated or simply nonsense. Through her many letters - some still remain unpublished - one gets wonderful impressons of her character and ways of thinking.
Any questions?! :)
i have just been watching this video 'http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl7VnQeu8OQ' its about the IF execution with clips taken from several films. if you watch it you will notice that in each of the film Alexandra is portrayed as being 'snobbish' or 'insensitive'.
i know that she had her moments but i see her a caring, sensitive woman.
what do you think?
Snobbish or sensitive ? Is this really the question that we should be asking? Appropriate choice or inappropriate choice as a future Russian Empress is the question that I am inclined to ask.
Unfortunately Alexandra never made the transition from her early life in a minor and impoverished royal family with strong bourgeois tendencies to the role of spouse of an Autocrat of a world super power with an opulent Court. If we were to look at earlier Empresses, we would see that more prominent countries, Denmark and Prussia for example, had provided more prepared and worldly spouses for earlier 19th century Russian Emperors. After the obligation of providing a healthy male heir, the Empress' active and successful participation at Court and Russian society was her most important obligation. In both these roles, Alexandra of Hess failed. I do not fault her here but rather Nikolas II in not making an appropriate marriage based on the needs of the Empire rather than personal love.
Actually it is one of the eldest traceable Protestant ruling Houses in the world, descending directly from Emperor Charles the Great as well as from St Elisabeth of Thuringia - related to Emperors and Kings of all Europe.
What you are calling "bourgeoise" is actually a strong trace of modern liberalism which additionally distinguised that family in a particular way. Alexandra Feodorovna did certainly not approve superficial aspects of courtlife - she prefered achievements on the charity section for the poor and wounded. Many modern terms of medicine were adopted in Russia exclusively due to her work (esp. during the War).
In my opinion Prussia and Denmark provided nothing more than fashinable "dancing Queens" - in the real sense of the word. If this is what you prefer to see in the role of an Empress: than you might be right...
As regards the "healthy male heir": this was certainly not Alexandra's fault or shall I send you a book on Mendel, Mr Pritchard?
The more I read, the more I am convinced - it wasn't Alexandra who was snobbish. It was the Russian aristocracy! Perhaps I am putting my 20th-century-middle-class upbringing too close to this flame here, but those people make me angry, the way they turned their noses up at her "ways".
I understand what you are saying, but this applies even if you are the consort of the ruler of the "Romans"? :) I suppose I still believe (in my 20th-century-middle-class-North-American mindset, lol) that they didn't have to do as she did, or like it, but did they have to punish her for it?
I see now that you are not too familiar with the Russians. They can be brutal to those who do not conform. One could easily imagine that the saying "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" was invented by Russians.
I think there is some validity in your points about the Russian Succession in the 18th Century and the removal of undesirable heirs...However it did also cause great insecurity it also in many cases undermined the power of the Emperor/Empress - the only two who could arguably be said to have strengthened Russia and Imperial power were Elizabeth I and Catherine II.
I think there is some validity in your points about the Russian Succession in the 18th Century and the removal of undesirable heirs...However it did also cause great insecurity it also in many cases undermined the power of the Emperor/Empress - the only two who could arguably be said to have strengthened Russia and Imperial power were Elizabeth I and Catherine II.Just out of curiosity - what would the succession have been between the time of Catherine II and 1917, if that law had not been in existence, assuming any firstborn surviving child would have ascended the throne?
If you mean (as I think you do) to include FEMALE children in the succession strictly in birth order (as per the current sucession in Sweden for instance), the change would have occurred at the point Konstantin Pavlovich renounced the throne. Instead of passing to Nicholas I, it would have gone to the descendants of his sister - Tsar Paul's second daughter (the first having died in childbirth). This was Elena Pavlovna, whose son Paul Friedrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin would thereby have become Tsar Paul II......
(BTW, a lot of Paul Friedrich's descendants inter-married with the Romanovs anyway; one of his grand daughters was the infamous Miechen; and another grandson married the equally infamous - in her own day - Anastasia Mikhailovna).
If you mean (as I think you do) to include FEMALE children in the succession strictly in birth order (as per the current sucession in Sweden for instance), the change would have occurred at the point Konstantin Pavlovich renounced the throne. Instead of passing to Nicholas I, it would have gone to the descendants of his sister - Tsar Paul's second daughter (the first having died in childbirth). This was Elena Pavlovna, whose son Paul Friedrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin would thereby have become Tsar Paul II......
(BTW, a lot of Paul Friedrich's descendants inter-married with the Romanovs anyway; one of his grand daughters was the infamous Miechen; and another grandson married the equally infamous - in her own day - Anastasia Mikhailovna).
Thanks! Yes, this is what I meant, and I did mean to exclude illegitimate children.
Anastasia Mikhailovna...was this "Stana", of the "Black Family" duo?
In responce to Selencia, I too have read "Nicholas and Alexander" many times over the years and I have to disagree. It wasn't all about her as the portrait you describe. In fact I believe it was quite the opposite, she scarfice many, many times for her son and for the people of Russia. She even had a miscarriage because she was grieving for the death of her people. Also Alexander did not have that kind of power to pick officials to run the government. Also the revolution would still have taken it's course with or without Alexander as Empress, they were many, many other factors as well.
Mr. Darcy wayIs this character from the "Pride and Prejudice" ? I've just watched that movie last Wednesday and it's so boring...(sorry, off-topic)
are there any photographs of alexandra eating ice cream?
Yes, Imperial Grounds.... It's so good to read that.
Just click that link nena gave and read more. You'll know how sad their life was in Tsarskoe selo.
I also wonder why Alix Viktoria Helena Luise was not called Viktoria, Helena or Luise. she's always famously known as Alix. Why? Her name is so pretty,right ?
(just like her face)
Does she know how to speak a straight Russian?
I know she could speak it but O don't know how well she really does.
Did she always converse with her children in English?
It was vanilla. I think the book even gave the recipe. I could re-order it from the library if you want the recipe for Ice Cream Romanov. ;-)
I `ve always wondered how it was possible that she remained slim after she had given birth to Olga who was a big baby and weighted quite a lot!
Alix definitely disliked the Russian aristocrats. She perceived them to be immoral and corrupt (and from what I have read about them, I would tend to agree with her) and she would not allow her children to be around them or their children.
“Be the Emperor, be Peter the Great, John the Terrible, the Emperor Paul—crush them all under you—Now don't you laugh, naughty one—but I long to see you so with those men who try to govern you.”
The anecdote about shopping in the Crimea is from Anna Vyrubova's book.Anna Vyrubova's book actually isn't the only source. A Berlin newspaper published an account similar to this story in November 1911.
...
The anecdote from Vyrubova's book is subject to how much faith one has in Vyrubova to tell the truth and to not gloss over things because of her love and hero worship of Alexandra.
If I remember correctly, she was born in June 6, so yes, she was Gemini.
We have to remember that Alix was in a desperate situation, very religious, and impressed with Rasputin because he had
miraculous powers over Alexai.
one of the main flaws of af`s character that influenced her position as the empress was her inability to get on with pople, her inabilty to realize that she was not only a wif and a mother but THE EMPRESS who had certain roles to fulfil. unlike her mother -in-law whose motto was SMILE! SMILE! af was not able to establish good rapport with people. also, she wanted to live a quit family life at times forgtting or ignoring her role as the emprss.
this is what Marie of romania said (marie and hr son`s carol`s visit to russia when carol`s and olga`s marriag was planned)
alix "managed to put an insuperable distance betwn her world and yours....She made you , in fact, feel an intruding outsider,which is of all sensations the most chilling and uncomfortable...Altough there is little diffrenc in age between us, she had a way of making me feel as though I were not even grown up!"
when the time came to leave tsarskoe selo, marie said
"To part from ai was not difficult,she mad lav-taking quite easy. Her lif was lik a closd chamber, peopled with strange imaginations and still stranger individuals, into which no outsider had
entry...No, it was no grief to leave Alix".
We have to remember that Alix was in a desperate situation, very religious, and impressed with Rasputin because he had
miraculous powers over Alexai.
...Alexandra appeared in public reluctantly, usually looking miserable, and expected the Russian people to love her without doing anything in return. Granted she took up nursing when the war began, but for 20 years before that she had avoided her royal duties.
Just contrast Alexandra with our present Queen, who appreciates that a visit from her and being spoken to by her is going to be a high spot in many people's lives, and makes an effort to be interested in whatever it is she's visiting, no matter that it's one more in a long long succession of hospitals, art galleries etc, and she'd really much rather be at home with the TV.
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding with the public role of a sovereign and his/her family. Public duties that we think of now are the majority of almost every Royal's life. They are far more numerous and visible than fifty or sixty years ago.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries the public role of a royal person was far smaller (apart from the sovereign themselves) - in fact you would be hard put to find much difference between the public activities of royals and the upper echelons of society. the bulk of their lives followed the same pattern of their aristocracy, interspersed with public appearances at certain national events, and public appearances at some of the charity events arranged under their patronage.
A reading of the public engagements of Queen Mary in the pre war years would make pretty dull reading - the odd state visit, a variety of charity bazaars and fetes, and the major events surrounding the coronation and the Durbhar. The rest of the time her life followed the usual pattern of followinig her husband from London to Balmoral to Windsor to Sandringham with the odd private visit to the homes of their intimates - they rarely attended great balls or major social/society occassions as George V wasn't fond of them. During the war her public duties increased as she visited more and more hospitals and nursing posts etc and fund raising events etc. There were changes after the war but their duties didn't really explode until the 50's and 60's.
Alix's dislike for major social occassions and her personal feelings that she was disliked by Petersburg society - naturally reduced her visibility at key social events and damaged her reputation (either fairly or unfairly), her other public duties were limited as much of the charity work of the Empress Consort (the Department of the Empress Marie - founded by Paul I's wife) was still firmly in the hands of the Dowager Empress again limiting what Alix could do. Had she enjoyed society and thrown herself into society she might have not gained the reputation she did but it seems she just couldn't bring herself to do it or thought it necessary.
Queen Mary was well known for carrying out her Royal duties, no matter what. One of the Royal children once complained about having to perform a public duty, and her response was :
" We are the Bitish royal family, we love visiting hospitals, and we never get tired. "
Pity Alexandra did not follow her example.
Yes, of course. The difference between Queen Victoria and Alexandra, however, is that Victoria listened. <snip>
To Queen Victoria duty came 1st, above everything else, death, sickness and many other personal issues. She also had a haemophiliac son. All responsible Royals are overworked and have nervous breakdowns probably. Its part of the job. But you get on with it.
Yes, of course. The difference between Queen Victoria and Alexandra, however, is that Victoria listened. She got out there and did her job, and as a result became hugely popular and loved by her subjects. If you read her letters and diaries, it becomes obvious that she did not always enjoy what she had to do. Her responsibilities were enormous. She had to do it without the support of a husband as well.
QuoteYes, of course. The difference between Queen Victoria and Alexandra, however, is that Victoria listened. She got out there and did her job, and as a result became hugely popular and loved by her subjects. If you read her letters and diaries, it becomes obvious that she did not always enjoy what she had to do. Her responsibilities were enormous. She had to do it without the support of a husband as well.
In fact, Queen Victoria went through several periods of unpopularity, largely because she did not listen. The first such period was shortly after she came to the throne, when she encouraged salacious gossip about her mother's lady-in-waiting Lady Flora Hastings, who was rumoured to be pregnant by Sir John Conroy. However, Lady Flora was dying of a disease which distended her abdomen. Queen Victoria played a very unpleasant part in not quashing the rumours and allowing it to be seen that she believed them and Lady Flora's family were furious at her treatment and were able to whip up public indignation at the Queen. The second period of unpopularity came with her seclusion following the death of Prince Albert, when she went into seclusion for about 10 years, when the public basically felt she was not doing her job but costing them a lot of money at the same time, especially as she had to continually request funds from Parliament for her growing children as they married and needed establishments. She never for a second admitted any of her critics were right at either of these times, although from her correspondence and journal it is clear she did not play an admirable part in the Lady Flora Hastings affair, and her seclusion was entirely her own doing. She gradually came more into public life, particularly through the encouragement (even, seductiveness!) of Disraeli, and her golden jubilee was key in establishing her as the beloved figure of legend - but like all legends, there was a lot of fiction there as well as fact. The great problem was that with the death of Albert, there was no one to tell her that she had to do her duty and this is the great problem with all royal figures - there are too few people who are prepared to tell them what they don't want to hear. Additionally Queen Victoria had a breakdown at the time of her mother's death in March 1861. At that time Albert was alive and was able to help her through it. This first trauma probably fuelled her greater breakdown when Albert died about 9 months later. So the view of Queen Victoria's exemplary behaviour and stoical devotion to duty despite all vissicitudes is not in fact accurate. If Queen Victoria had died before 1875, her reign and personal popularity would have been considered much less successful.
I honestly cannot recall, in my reading about N&A or about Queen Victoria, an instance where Alexandra was vindicated for something, or where the British people held something against Victoria for her entire life.
The literacy of the population in general and the development of cheap newspapers can also only have helped the British royal family.
Mcdnab
This, is, I think, a very fair summary. I wonder whether part of the problem for the Romanovs in general during the war was that few had much of a 'public service profile' before 1914.
Contrast Russia, where the Imperial Family were distant and barely known. The younger Grand Dukes, if they made an impression on the public at all, were known as a bunch of wastrels. Then, as I said yesterday, they did not appear to have much involvement in the war effort, and here appearances were important. There's a nice picture on another thread of three of the Konstantinovichi boys together in East Prussia (must have been shortly before Oleg was killed). If that had appeared in the newspapers, it would only have helped the image - if, of course, the populace had heard of them previously. Of course, the Empress, the two elder girls, Olga Alexandrovna and Marie Pavlovna (younger) all nursed, but to what extent was this publicised?
If I had been handling imperial PR in 1914, I'd have had Olga and Tatiana visiting hospitals with just a lady-in-waiting, Marie and Anastasia being photographed knitting sweaters. Obviously, there was the problem in Russia that you didn't have in Britain, of a vast illiterate or barely literate population - had a popular press got going at that time?
Ann
As to the peasantry, Alexandra seems to have had a very idealised view of them and their 'devotion' to the Imperial Family. As a consequence of this, she seems to have assumed that she had no need to make any effort in relation to them. She also thought that the peasantry embodied the 'real' Russian spirit, and so saw no need to make any effort in relation to other groups either, most obviously the industrial workers. Iwonder what would have happened if Alexandra, at an early stage in Nicholas's reign, had financed a chain of medical clinics in the industrial areas of St Petersburg, paid regular visits to them, and so on.Most charitable organisations were, and remained, under the patronage of the Dowager Empress when Alexandra came to Russia. If Alexandra had tried to finance a chain of medical clinics, she could very well have come into collision with the Dowager Empress, like the tension with regard to Alexandra's hospital trains.
I think that the Imperial Family of Russia, and their almost slavish attitude toward Religion, constant visits to monastries, observance of hundreds of religious holidays, icons and chapels everywhere, fasting etc etc, was a bit unbalanced, and may have led to the belief that God put them where they were, and that he would never desert them. ( Read Alexandra's letters ) I think she became confused, and perhaps believed that the Autocracy and her position was an extension of the Russian Orthodox religion. She could therefore do no wrong, and nobody had the right to question or criticise her. She became a living martyr during her life time.
The opinions expressed in the other posts are all very valid, taking all the factors into consideration, also given the times they lived in, and the different attitudes which existed.
Religion in moderation is a good thing, like everything else, but not to the level to which Alexandra carried it. Her letters from the Ipatiev house to Ana Vyrobova and others were virtual mini sermons, and quite fanatical in a way.
One cannot compare her with Ella, who was more sensible and intelligent in many ways, however, I think they shared the same inborn preoccupation with religion, and their own interpretation of it.
My apologies if this offends anyone, but Ella also carried on a bit too fanatically after Serge's death, running around in those robes, giving everything away, and becoming a nun. All a bit weird I think.
Had Russia had a different system of Government it might not have caused her problems but unfortunately she alienated the people who were traditionally the Crown's most loyal supporters and a general air of dislike is soon diseminated to a wider audience.
Had Russia had a different system of Government it might not have caused her problems but unfortunately she alienated the people who were traditionally the Crown's most loyal supporters and a general air of dislike is soon diseminated to a wider audience.
I am not sure I agree with this bit. Maria Feodorovna may have been popular amongst this class of people, but it did not stop her being hated in the country at large - and that's no exaggeration; she required particular protection from assassination attempts because for the first ten years at least she was perceived as behind most of Nicholas's policies. The days when the aristocracy were "opinion leaders" were past. Nicholas and Alexandra's error was not in alienating some of these people but in failing to make strong bonds with anyone else, despite their efforts with the press and the church. The aristocracy did not lead the revolution, nor could they prevent it, and their support for the crown was greatly compromised firstly by the Great Reforms and then by the agricultural/industrial policies which Alexander III initiated and pursued in the eras of Vyshnegradsky and Witte. Stolypin's land reforms compromised things further, and it takes too narrow a view of things, in my opinion, to lay this at Alexandra's door for her failure to hold parties...some years!
IMHO, Alexandra's unpopularity with these people was a result of the monarchy's decline in support among the aristocracy, not the reason for it.
Note that the Dowager Empress opposed the land reforms, of course - and so many on this forum find her admirable!!!!!!
As to Marie Feodorovna - certainly she was subject to the same threats as many fo the family from revolutionaries again she is difficult to read because she wasn't a very clever woman although not as stupid as her sister (and i don't mean that unkindly) - she tended to be more pro reform when in the company of her relations and when in Denmark and far less pragmatic when back in Russia. Nicholas certainly did listen to her - but on the whole her support of certain ministers in the first few years was fairly sound (men such as Witte for example) and your right even the British left wing described her as the "evil genius" of Nicholas II's reign when she arrived in Britain in exile after the revolution. However her influence in the later years had faded considerably to the point where some in the family believed any intervention she made would end badly. She was on the whole reasonable (described as eminently sensible by one recent historian) tended to listen to both sides even when she personally vehemently disagreed, more importantly she had a far more practical and pragmatic approach, she had no obscure mystical view of religion but within her own family was a stickler for the correct form and behaviour. Her biggest failing - the appalling education she and her husband gave all their children which probably permanently destroyed any independent thought or consideration of veering from tradition.
... In the end, Nicholas always did as he felt his conscience dictated, regardless of the views of Mama, Wify or anyone else, but the Dowager Empress was never slow with her views, and many of her suggestions (ranging from using state funds to bale out her friends to giving Russia's military support to any relative who found themselves in bother on the international stage - viz. George of Greece in Crete) were far from sensible. By and large it seems to me that her decisions and views were always propelled by emotion. At times, this means she can be seen as pragmatic under duress where Nicholas was stubborn, but there are plenty of other instances where her actions seem unwise at best.
Yes, but if you know your son is a weakling and unsuited for the job, then I think it is only natural to try and influence things. Firstly to save the country, and secondly to stop him making a fool of himself, and embarrassing the family. More so, when you know his wife is also incompetent and unsuited to her position.
I think any mother would have done the same. If I was in the same position as her, I would would have interfered hugely, rather than sit around doing nothing. At least Alexander lll was a strong Emperor and did not need any advice from his wife. So I dont think one can compare the two. Its a pity he did not absorb the advice he was given by his mother and uncles, and applied the best of it. Perhaps it would have been helpful in the end.
As for using state money to bail out her friends. Lucky friends. Most members of the Russian Royal family abused the system anyway. The Emperor had carte blanche, and would hardly refuse his mother anything. I am sure this went on all the time.
After all, everything belonged to them.
Read Catherine the Greats Biographies, if you want to see abuse of state monies !!
Its a pity he did not absorb the advice he was given by his mother and uncles, and applied the best of it. Perhaps it would have been helpful in the end.The advice of his uncles? THEY were the ones that demanded that Nicholas and Alexandra go the French ball rather than go to the hospitals after Khodynka. THEY were more afraid of offending the French (when they probably would have understood the circumstances) then their own people!
Yes, perhaps a flattering picture. The eyes maybe.
Princess Di smiled though. Alexandra, hardly ever.
Perhaps her teeth were not all that good. We never see her teeth, in any of the thousands of photographs taken of her.
Her diaries mention visits to the dentist quite often, so one never knows. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the non-smiling Alix.
The other reasons have been discussed ad nauseam.