Messages

121

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra - Slandered and Hated

« on: October 20, 2009, 11:15:15 AM »

I don't know so much about the tradition at the English Court - certainly Alexandra (as in Queen Alexandra) had a tendency to treat all her children as children long after they were grown adults very similar to how her parents treated all their children and how her sister Marie Feodorovna treated hers. Victoria certainly expected her younger daughters to remain with her but they did marry. Victoria herself expressed concerns to Bertie about her granddaugthers and their marriages Bertie agreed with her though expressed an opinion that he didn't believe Toria inclined to marriage and marriage for the others didn't stop either Marie F or Alexandra expecting all their daughters to dance attendance.
Queen Mary's only daughter Princess Mary The Princess Royal married Lord Lascelles later Earl of Harewood and had two sons - Queen Mary was a very differnet style of mother to her mother in law.

To be fair i think in some families it is often common particularly with many families where an older matriarch dominates - my own mother was expected to do a great deal for her mother (most of it willingly i would add) whereas her brother was never exepected to share in any of that.

From my own point of view - Alexandra's isolation from society and what that meant for her children is in many ways what I find hard to forgive or understand. A happy close family is one thing but even as children and with the threat of violence and assasination Nicholas II and his siblings regularly played with the children of court officials and carefully chosen children from within society.
As to her health I am sure that the worry over her son added to her problems and I suspect both made each other worse - her worry transferring to her son when he was ill (hence the success of Rasputin's hypnotic peace calming both of them). Her ability to take up nursing probably reflects her own sense of duty.
I've always found the nursing odd and distinctly un royal - funding hospitals (as her female relations did), touring them and offering comfort would have been far more appropriate and would perhaps have done much for her reputation. Instead she chose direct nursing surrounded by her immediate family and rather isolated yet again.

122

The Windsors / Re: Prince & Princess Michael of Kent,and their family

« on: October 02, 2009, 08:12:42 AM »

To be fair to the Kent's (all of them). They've hardly been on the gravy train for years. The late Duke of Kent had he lived would have provided for his family and been in a financial position to do so. Marina was left with heavy debts after his death which prompted her sale of stuff in the late 40's - partially because the Duchess of Kent unlike most war widows paid inheritance tax on the Duke's estate. George VI said he would see her alright which is perhaps why the Queen is still willing to help them out. There were of course the added problems that her mother Princess Nicholas of Greece (Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna) wasn't popular with the British Royal Family and of course her sister Princess Paul of Yugoslavia was also rather a persona non grata in Britain after the war (although she and her husband privately remained on very good terms with George VI and Queen Elizabeth who had known Prince Paul since before her marriage)

123

The Windsors / Re: Queen Victoria's Full Title At Death

« on: September 24, 2009, 10:25:33 AM »

Don't mean to nit pic but i will - She was NOT Queen of England - there is no such title and hasn't been for about three hundred years (unless you are a jacobite supporter of the Stuart succession).
Victoria was Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Empress of India etc....

124

The Windsors / Re: Queen Victoria's Full Title At Death

« on: September 21, 2009, 09:04:40 AM »

And in addition to Victoria - Princess Augusta of Cambridge, Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge and George 2nd Duke of Cambridge were also entitled to those styles. The titles did not descend to George of Cambridge's children as his marriage was in controvention of the Royal Marriages Act and would also have been morganatic under Hanoverian traditions.

125

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Was Alix of Hesse disliked by British royals?

« on: September 21, 2009, 08:55:11 AM »

Just a couple of points about the last post and the previous one - as I said earlier in the thread I don't believe there is any exisiting contemporary evidence that Alexandra Feodorovna was disliked by her British relations. I believe that what little evidence we have suggests that a) Queen Victoria was not greatly enamoured over Alex's decision to marry Nicholas firstly because she knew "Minny didn't wish it" and more importantly because Victoria had a distrust of Russia and the lack of political stability in the country, that b) Victoria had at some point advised Alex about gaining the love of her subjects which Alex had dismissed because Russia was different, that is pretty much all there is.

George V certainly noted that Nicky and Alicky had been foolish shall we say but I don't think it's any indication of a strong personal dislike and we do know that Queen Alexandra and Princess Victoria were deeply distressed by subsequent events and that distress I suspect was shared by the rest of the family.

Much of the surviving actual criticism of Alexandra comes from the wider Romanov family - there are letters from Missy (Marie Queen of Roumania first cousin to Nicholas and Alexandra) and Victoria Melita (Grand Duchess Kyril first cousin again to both N and A as well as being A's former sister in law) that are critical of her but neither show any particular hatred - both were writing to Grand Duchess Xenia.

To be perfectly truthful Alexandra's fault and failings were also those of Nicholas (and indirectly his parents) but I don't believe that is particularly relevant to a discussion of how Alexandra was regarded by her British cousins.

A few points about the below post:

If you are referring to Queen Mary (consort of George V) then although born a Princess of Teck she was brought up and entirely educated in England (her mother was first cousin to Queen Victoria and a direct male line descendant of George III - her father was a morganatic descendant of the Kings of Wurttemburg who were it not for his birth might well have succeeded to that throne - after his marriage he made his home in England where his wife had an income and was tremendously popular with the British public - they overspent and were continually poor.)

Mary (May to the family) had her own problems with her in laws as Alexandra had although Queen Victoria was very fond of her - she was looked down on due to her father's birth and her mother's weight - she was also far more intelligent and artistic than her Wales' cousins who whatever their attributes couldn't have been described as particularly intelligenet or artistic. She developed the patience of a saint and managed to cope.

You mentioned the British royal family and the Second World War - in fact despite the common misconception - King George VI and Queen Elizabeth rarely spent a night in London during the blitz - returned to the relative safety of Windsor Castle each evening although at times the Royal Standard continued to be flown over Buckingham Palace implying the sovereign was still present.

The British royals have always realised the importance of getting on with all levels of society, because their survival depended on it. i think the British Royals at the time, although horrified at what happened, where not surprised at the outcome.

I think they disliked Alexandra because she was one of them, and they expected her to behave in a certain way, and she did not. She let the side down. Queen Mary was particularly verbal about people who shirked their Royal duties. Even her own children did not escape her criticism, at the merest suggestion of not wanting to perform a duty. 

Yes she did not have as long a time as Queen Mary to aclimatise to her new country, and she was a foreigner. So what ? She never listened to any good advice either. Even towards the end she did not listen. In 1917 she made hardly any effort to fulfill her royal duties, so what difference would it have made ?

Also, she deserted St Petersburg, because she and her husband were afraid of being killed by the revolutionaries. On the eve of the 1905 revolution, when she found out about the famous march on the Winter Palace, she was running around hysterically begging her husband to leave. And they did, in a closed carriage, that very evening.

The British Royals would never have left, they even sat out the bombing during the second world war.

I dont think the British Royal Family had much respect for the manner in which Alexandra conducted her life, and thought her unsuited for the position. So did the Russian Royal family actually.
Poor woman, she was in the wrong country at the wrong time, doing everything wrong.       

       

 

 

 
       

126

The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Hemophilia and Other Blood Disorders

« on: September 11, 2009, 04:03:05 PM »

Interesting as it is I tend to agree with Lily. DNA testing was vital to establish beyond doubt that the remains were those of the Imperial Family but beyond that it has very little relevance.
Whether or not the descendants of Victoria had the faulty gene is mere guesswork although there are plenty of other descendants who were alleged to be carriers or sufferers who could at a push be tested but I don't really see the necessity. We know factually that some of Victoria's descendants had serious illnesses that appeared to involve a problem with clotting and appear to have been hereditary,

127

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..

« on: September 11, 2009, 03:24:30 PM »

Depends on what level you want to read at = the Anne Wroe is very long but fascinating, the Weir is popular history and that's no bad thing - an easy read and Ricardians loathe her for it! The Giles St Aubyn feels a bit dated now but has some value.
Recently there's a David Baldwin on Elizabeth Wydeville which is rather good (but an updated version of her only other biographer McGibbon who wrote in the 30's).
I think the standard on Edward IV is still Charles Ross.

128

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: How did Christian IX view Alexandra?

« on: September 09, 2009, 09:25:00 AM »

Firstly not really the place for an arguement about the Shelswig Holstein problems but i can't resist - to be fair to both sides - Shleswig had been a danish possession for centuries whilst Holstein was essentially a german duchy held by the Danish King. The problems in the 19th century emerged with the failure of the Danish royal line and attempts by Frederick VII to give the duches a constitution which would effectively incorporate them into Denmark. The practical solution would have been seperation of the duchies with the danish majority in Shleswig being incorporated into the Danish Kingdom and the German majority in Holstein allowed to remain a sovereign duchy within the German confederation but strictly that would have breached an earlier treaty stating that the two should remain united. It was exacerbated by Denmark becoming a constitutional monarchy and the duchies remaining absolutist and by the Danish government opting for Prince Christian (the future Christian IX) as heir to the Danish throne when the Duke of Augustenberg was technically heir to Shleswig Holstein though he'd renounced his claims earier. Christian IX over his own best intentions was forced to sign a new consitution on his accession which bound the duchies to Denmark - thus war broke out which ended in his and Denmark's humiliation and forced to surrender his rights to the Duchy (which he did have though he was a junior claimant) to Prussia and Austria.

129

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, discussion and pictures Part 2

« on: September 03, 2009, 09:20:06 AM »

I am reminded rather of the concern expressed over the plans of the Princess Irena Alexandrovna to marry Felix Yussupov and his rather poor reputation at the time - and Grand Duke Alexander's belief that there was reason to be concerned whilst his slightly more naive wife Grand Duchess Xenia was inclined to dismiss the rumours as it seems was Marie Feodorovna.
As to Olga she had opportunity to protest between the proposal and the wedding which she by her own admission didn't because she wanted above all to stay in Russia. I can't believe if she'd really wanted to she'd not have been able to protest to Nicholas as she'd done so over the replacement of Nana a few years earlier.
Certainly the two mother's got on well and certainly Peter's mother was keen on the match - also it's worth remembering that unlike with her elder children Marie F's relationship with Olga was not good.
Arranged marriages for Royalty were not that unusual even by this period and often turned out well, I suspect that her mother believed it might be for the best.

130

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..

« on: September 03, 2009, 07:31:29 AM »

Firstly Henry VII never claimed the throne by hereditary right - his first Parliament acknowledged him as King by "right of conquest". Henry was exceptionally keen to ensure that he was not recognised as King by right of his wife and it also avoided issues over whether his Lancastrian Beaufort claim (through his mother who was still alive) was valid given the fact the Beaufort families rights were questionable due to their lack of legitimacy.
Secondly after the Battle of Bosworth - Henry restored Elizabeth Wydeville's dower rights and reinstated her rights and titles as Queen Dowager (removed by Richard III after he declared her marriage to the late Edward IV invalid) - she was present at court on occasions and was chief sponsor of Prince Arthur at his christening at Winchester. Most Ricardians have suggested that in 1487 she became involved in Lincoln's rebellion as she was either disatisfied with her daughter's condition or was plotting to restore one of her missing sons so she lost her property and was forced into the Abbey of Bermondsey where she died penniless in 1492.
However Bermondsey was an Abbey that previous Queen dowager's had retired to (notably Katherine of Valois widow of Henry V), it also had a connection to the House of York. Elizabeth certainly lost her dower lands but was in receipt of a cash pension and was still an occasional visitor to court - also in the autumn of 1487 she was half heartedly offered as a wife to King James III of Scots (her second daughter Cecily being again offered to his son).
Henry VII's problem was fairly unique - the bulk of the wealth of the House of York was held by the Dowager Duchess Cecily (mother of Edward IV) she didn't die until the mid 1490's when her estates would revert to the crown, he had to provide a full dower and appropriate income for his wife Elizabeth of York (who as an English royal bride brought him nothing but her rights to the throne), had to provide dowers to his wife's surviving sisters and much of his own family fortune was held by his mother (who would outlive him). To a man with a keen financial brain it might have made sense to use his mother in law's dower to provide for his wife and settle a cash pension on her instead.

131

The Windsors / Re: Queen Mary- part 4

« on: September 03, 2009, 07:17:17 AM »

Victoria recommended a number of matches through German relations but the morganatic blood was a serious problem for her. It almost certainly ruled out a foreign(german) match - even a decade later there was considerable disapproval for the marriage of Victoria's granddaugther to the King of Spain due to her morganatic Battenburg blood (as well as the religious problems). She may well have remained unmarried rather like Princess Victoria.

132

The Windsors / Re: King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

« on: August 31, 2009, 10:24:17 AM »

Well the idea of some conspiracy to remove Edward VIII is hardly new, however the official paperwork and the numerous accounts from letters and diaries of the period suggest several things none of them leading to a "plot".
It is also worth bearing mind that Britain is a "Parliamentary" monarchy - a monarch that is unacceptable to Parliament can't stay on the throne without a clash.
Edward backed himself into a corner - once he'd informed Baldwin of his determination to marry Wallis either on or off the throne he'd given the Prime Minister and himself no room for any alternative option.

133

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Was Alix of Hesse disliked by British royals?

« on: August 26, 2009, 07:48:59 AM »

Britain and Russia were both rival Imperial powers throughout the 19th Century - the alliance that tied Russia and Britain together was largely coincidence and down to the entente between Britain and France during the reign of Edward VII (Russia allied with France in the 1890's in response to the end of formal alliances with both Austria and Prussia/Germany aggrevated by the dislike of both Alexander III and his wife for the German Kaiser a feeling shared by Nicholas and Alix but less so by George V and Queen Mary ).
Alexander III had a dislike for Victoria and a long standing antipathy to Britain (largely due to British policy in supporting the collapsing Ottoman empire and her ambitions in Afghanistan, in British eyes Russia was a threat to her ambitions in both the Middle East and Asia) however that doesn't seem to have been shared with his children although Nicholas II and his sisters were quite strongly opposed to the Boer War and had little sympathy with the British (but then neither did most of Europe at the time).
Victoria did write quite warmly to Marie Feodrovna on the death of Alexander III and the women corresponded and met in the South of France on at least one occassion in the 1890's. Victoria was often surprised and admiring of the closeness of the Danish royal family however she thought Queen Louise a great "intriguer". The general anti prussian/german views of the Danish royal family which dated to the war that followed Christian IX's accession over Shleswig Holstein had passed through the family to include the Russian Imperial family and to a lesser extent the Wales' family of Edward VII as well - this jarred with Queen Victoria's open affection for Germany (the place of her dear Albert's birth) and her numerous family connections there.
Victoria's comment on Alix's refusal of Eddy was that she was impressed by her willingness to forgoe such a great position - she was fond of all her Hesse grandchildren and liked Alix's father. Her written concern about the engagement to Nicholas was that she was more concerned about the safety of the country (remember it was only 12 years since the murder of Alexander II) but she added that her concern was not on account of the person because she liked Nicholas very much.
Eddy's passion for Alix was very shortlived he moved swiftly on to Helene of Orleans (ironically Marie F's preferred option for Nicholas) and then when that faltered, on the Pope and her father's refusal to allow her to convert to Anglicanism, to Princess May who was another of her relations that Victoria had a good opinion of.

Incidentally the suggestion that he might have been "jack" have been largely discounted and owe far more the imagination of writers and film makers than historical fact!

134

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..

« on: August 25, 2009, 07:39:34 AM »

The fact that both boys hadn't been since 1483 means that it is extremely difficult to assume, however much one might wish to, that they'd escaped.

The rumours of their disappearance were highly damaging for Richard III the fact he didn't produce them alive is in itself suggestive. There is also the fact that if he had produced them they would provide a fresh focus for rebellion at home and abroad. He was as the saying goes between a rock and a hard place - even if one of the boys died of natural causes he couldn't escape the suggestion that the boy had been murdered.

Others have suggested one or both of them might have died in an attempted rescue attempt or that in fact both fell ill and died during their captivity again explaining Richard's failure to produce them to counter the claims against him.

The candidates for murder range from Richard himself to Henry Tudor (though the idea they could have remained prisoners for nearly two years with no-one seeing them stretches my imagination a bit too far).

Recently Philippa Gregory's latest fiction book the White Queen suggests that Elizabeth Wydeville planted a changeling in the tower and smuggled her youngest son abroad - but she was in sanctuary at Westminster at the time and it was guarded so again a bit of a stretch of the imagination however entertaining it might be.

Recognition by Margaret of Burgundy is hardly surprising and given his success at other courts during the 1490's she certainly taught him well. Margaret's beef wasn't so much about the deposition of her brother Richard III (she certainly didn't seem to have such a problem with him deposing and bastardising her nephew) but about her long standing arguement with Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII about her English dower lands supporting would-be pretenders gave her a stick to continue beating Henry with.

The fact that Henry didn't put his wife through meeting with Warbeck isn't that surprising - she would naturally denounce him as a fraud and those who supported him would say she'd failed to acknowledge him under pressure from her husband or to safeguard her own and her children's position. It had no advantage to Henry VII after all Warbeck was defeated and a prisoner and now presented no threat.

The mystery haunted much of Henry's reign and despite the image of security the regular appearances of pretenders and his reaction to them have always suggested to me that he really wasn't sure what happened to Edward V and Richard Duke of York and Norfolk which in turn suggests that his mother in law Elizabeth Wydeville and his wife Elizabeth of York were also pretty much in the dark with only guesswork to go on or had decided not to tell him the truth. (which might support the theory that Elizabeth Wydeville had been involved or had knowledge of a rescue attempt that went wrong and that ended in one of the boys dying and the other perhaps been murdered as a reaction to the failed rescue).
I've never been convinced myself by Warbeck despite some very good research on the matter and some interesting possibilities

135

The Final Chapter / Re: What do you think would have been the RIGHT end?

« on: August 25, 2009, 07:06:33 AM »

Immediately after his abdication when he met his mother for the last time before he returned to the capital he was advised (by his own staff as well as some of the allied staff present) to leave the country immediately. It was pointed out to him that no deposed monarch in history had been able to stay in his country with any kind of freedom.

At that point its highly likely that the provisional government still trying to fight the war and trying to establish a working government would have let him go (neither Lvov or Kerensky had any great desire for blood). The government dropped its investigation into Alexandra a few weeks later as it became apparent that despite her german birth the allegations of spying for the enemy that had found common currency in Petersburg were not true. Had Nicholas left immediately for Finland it is highly likely that Alexandra and the children would have been allowed to follow as soon as they were well enough to travel.

According to Sophie Buxhoeveden staff even offered to look after the children at the Alexander Palace if Nicholas and Alexandra left and then take them to Finland when they were well enough.

Foreign offers after the immediate aftermath of the abdication were pointless - firstly travel in wartime was dangerous no matter who you are but more importantly the Soviet were actively demanding assurances that the former Emperor and Empress would be kept under arrest and remain in Russia and the Soviet were also complaining that other Romanov's including the Dowager Empress and Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch were still at liberty. The provisional government nearly fell in July and was incredibly weak and divided when pressured (which is why the October revolution was won so easily).

The allied powers also had a problem with offering sanctuary on purely political grounds - it was in Britain and France's interest that the Provisional Government survived and continued the war.

Offering help and assistance to the Romanov's (at a time when restoration at some point was still considered by many monarchists) could have gone down badly with their Russian ally. The British decision to withdraw or not to press their initial offer was of course down to George V's increasingly difficult personal situation (concerns over how they would be supported financially because the Government wouldn't pay, concerns about the continuing anti german view that was slowly being directed towards the Royal family, the reaction of the British left to whom Nicholas was seen as a tyrant) but by the time the offer was discussed by the Petrograd government the Bolshevik's were already pressing for guarantees so even if the British had continued to press it is difficult to see how the government would have managed to get them out.

When Kerensky did move them to Tobolsk it is tragic he didn't smuggle them into Finland and risk the fall out - the decision to move them at all was because the situation was such a mess and the government was still struggling to maintain authority whatever he stated in later he should have taken a risk and given them a chance.

Given what had happened to previous monarch's who'd been overthrown and the visible hatred of many of the guards who were in place at the Alexander Palace during their initial captivity it would have occured to both of them that there was a real risk to certainly Nicholas' life at the least and I think I will always find it hard to understand how willingly they seem to have sleep walked to their eventual deaths. Almost like they embraced the idea of being martyrs whilst maintaining a hopeful facade for their loyal servants and the children who would die with them.