Show Posts
106
Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad
« on: January 04, 2010, 03:47:26 PM »
This is a significant and interesting issue:
To address a few points:
Queen Victoria's retreat into widowhood in the 1860's was a national disaster. Her apparent neglect of her constitutional role was what really attracted the criticism not her failure to potter around looking at hospitals. The late 1860's early 1870's most historians reckon is when Britain's tiny republican movement really gained prominance.
Victoria's whole family recognised the problems and eventually succeeded in getting through to her. First and foremost she was a Queen and very much liked being one from all accounts <g>.
Her longevity, the growth of Britain's prestige, and the size of her family all helped her recover her popularity with the public despite the fact that she reigned as much of her family had done before her...very much out of the public glare. She attended the great public events, but frequently abandoned court life to her children and her foreign travel to Germany and France was largely for pleasure. The vast majority of her subjects never saw her, but she remained a presence in national life and a focal point.
The public service role of Royalty was in the 19th century a new thing - those Royals not in the direct line of succession were pretty much left to their own devices - with in some cases disastrous pr results (George III's sons for example). It was part of a movement that saw Royals look for a new role as their traditional one of government declined (even within the surviving absolute monarchies).
In Britain in the 19th century there was an explosion of charity - tied in with the growing urban poor, the growing industrial rich and the failure of centuries old poor laws designed for an essentially agrarian economy. The non aristocratic rich began either for social advancement or for genuine religious concern (many of the new rich came from non-conformist or jewish backgrounds) to ape the charitable efforts of the great landowning aristocrats. There was an explosion of charity hospitals etc. In keeping with the general move it became common for people to ask royal personages to take honorary positions on their pet charities. It was a fundamental change particularly for Royal women but their prime role remained social and maternal. For Royal men the traditional route for a prince was the army, the navy and possibly a governor generalship at some point along with the odd pet charity. The idea of being idle wasn't something to be encouraged or considered!
The nearest Russian counterpart to what was happening in 19th Century Britain - is the growth of the Department of the Empress Marie - which was under the control of the Empress Consort (or dowager). It was responsible for schools, hospitals etc and by the end of the century was almost the same size as a government department. Just as in Western Europe charity particular when it was a route to Imperial favour and attention was growing in popularity.
The problem Alex faced was that so much of the traditional charitable work of an Empress Consort was under the control of a mother in law she was out of sympathy with (and both women were to blame here). Other Romanov Grand Duchesses took up their own particular brand of charity as did many aristocratic women and as in Western Europe - cushy staff jobs in the army or navy were the traditional route and education of a Grand Duke. I don't believe the idea of a public service charitable royal role was well established anywhere in this period but its growth across Europe was remarkable and fairly consistant. Most of them had little else to do to be quite brutal about.
As late as the 1920's there was a concern that the small public role the British Royal Family undertook was too concerned with traditional charitable areas and had left them ill informed and unconnected with many of their subjects working in the major (and then suffering) industries (hence the role carved out by the Duke of York in the twenties).
The British Royal roles we see today and those of their reigning compatriots across Northern Europe are the result of having to come to terms with the growth of socialism with its post war emphasis on state charity - National Health Services etc....which could have reduced their value - they simply replaced them with other charity work and moved away from any areas where they might come into an open clash with their governments.
On the social side. This remained and to a certain extent still does - Royalty was expected to lead society by which I mean the upper wealthy and aristocratic echelons - in an age before mass celebrity - rich toffs and royals filled the society columns. In Britain Victoria withdrew but her son (with no responsibilities) enjoyed it and what's more was far more willing to cross barriers that had previously existed - Prince Bertie was as happy enough to be entertained by rich industrialists as by Duke's. A fact that rather shocked many of his continental cousins! His son, George V preferred the life of a country gentleman and like his grandmother soon became the model of a rather middle class type of King (a bit of a myth really but the impression of a quiet family man did him no harm in the changing world of the twenties and thirties)
Alix didn't particularly enjoy society, had come from a relatively small and comparatively provincial court. She had little time to adapt and chose not to - the season ran for a very short period of time and certainly when she wasn't pregnant she should and could have made more of an effort. 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. A rather foolish woman who would have ably coped with being consort to an unimportnat German princeling but quite unsuited to Russia at this period!
To address a few points:
Queen Victoria's retreat into widowhood in the 1860's was a national disaster. Her apparent neglect of her constitutional role was what really attracted the criticism not her failure to potter around looking at hospitals. The late 1860's early 1870's most historians reckon is when Britain's tiny republican movement really gained prominance.
Victoria's whole family recognised the problems and eventually succeeded in getting through to her. First and foremost she was a Queen and very much liked being one from all accounts <g>.
Her longevity, the growth of Britain's prestige, and the size of her family all helped her recover her popularity with the public despite the fact that she reigned as much of her family had done before her...very much out of the public glare. She attended the great public events, but frequently abandoned court life to her children and her foreign travel to Germany and France was largely for pleasure. The vast majority of her subjects never saw her, but she remained a presence in national life and a focal point.
The public service role of Royalty was in the 19th century a new thing - those Royals not in the direct line of succession were pretty much left to their own devices - with in some cases disastrous pr results (George III's sons for example). It was part of a movement that saw Royals look for a new role as their traditional one of government declined (even within the surviving absolute monarchies).
In Britain in the 19th century there was an explosion of charity - tied in with the growing urban poor, the growing industrial rich and the failure of centuries old poor laws designed for an essentially agrarian economy. The non aristocratic rich began either for social advancement or for genuine religious concern (many of the new rich came from non-conformist or jewish backgrounds) to ape the charitable efforts of the great landowning aristocrats. There was an explosion of charity hospitals etc. In keeping with the general move it became common for people to ask royal personages to take honorary positions on their pet charities. It was a fundamental change particularly for Royal women but their prime role remained social and maternal. For Royal men the traditional route for a prince was the army, the navy and possibly a governor generalship at some point along with the odd pet charity. The idea of being idle wasn't something to be encouraged or considered!
The nearest Russian counterpart to what was happening in 19th Century Britain - is the growth of the Department of the Empress Marie - which was under the control of the Empress Consort (or dowager). It was responsible for schools, hospitals etc and by the end of the century was almost the same size as a government department. Just as in Western Europe charity particular when it was a route to Imperial favour and attention was growing in popularity.
The problem Alex faced was that so much of the traditional charitable work of an Empress Consort was under the control of a mother in law she was out of sympathy with (and both women were to blame here). Other Romanov Grand Duchesses took up their own particular brand of charity as did many aristocratic women and as in Western Europe - cushy staff jobs in the army or navy were the traditional route and education of a Grand Duke. I don't believe the idea of a public service charitable royal role was well established anywhere in this period but its growth across Europe was remarkable and fairly consistant. Most of them had little else to do to be quite brutal about.
As late as the 1920's there was a concern that the small public role the British Royal Family undertook was too concerned with traditional charitable areas and had left them ill informed and unconnected with many of their subjects working in the major (and then suffering) industries (hence the role carved out by the Duke of York in the twenties).
The British Royal roles we see today and those of their reigning compatriots across Northern Europe are the result of having to come to terms with the growth of socialism with its post war emphasis on state charity - National Health Services etc....which could have reduced their value - they simply replaced them with other charity work and moved away from any areas where they might come into an open clash with their governments.
On the social side. This remained and to a certain extent still does - Royalty was expected to lead society by which I mean the upper wealthy and aristocratic echelons - in an age before mass celebrity - rich toffs and royals filled the society columns. In Britain Victoria withdrew but her son (with no responsibilities) enjoyed it and what's more was far more willing to cross barriers that had previously existed - Prince Bertie was as happy enough to be entertained by rich industrialists as by Duke's. A fact that rather shocked many of his continental cousins! His son, George V preferred the life of a country gentleman and like his grandmother soon became the model of a rather middle class type of King (a bit of a myth really but the impression of a quiet family man did him no harm in the changing world of the twenties and thirties)
Alix didn't particularly enjoy society, had come from a relatively small and comparatively provincial court. She had little time to adapt and chose not to - the season ran for a very short period of time and certainly when she wasn't pregnant she should and could have made more of an effort. 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. A rather foolish woman who would have ably coped with being consort to an unimportnat German princeling but quite unsuited to Russia at this period!