Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

[rskkiya]

I think this site definitely idolizes them.  Most definitely.  

   But I don't think that that is what was intended. I was under the impression that this site was meant to be a Historical discussion site.
   Am I wrong? If this is just a worship NAOTMAA site, then I really don't belong here!

rskkiya

[Elisabeth]

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.  

I think I understand what you are getting at overall, Helen, and I agree with the general outline of what you are saying, 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.

[Belochka]

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 agree with you Elizabeth. There are also places which provided the venue for those victors and victims to make their stand in history. Absolute truth presumes the telling of no lies.

[helenazar]

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.

BTW, I am not saying this because it is fashionable to say it, I didn't even realize that it was, I am just saying it because this is the way I perceive it, being very familiar with both discipline types and thus being able to make the comparison between the two... that's all  .

P.S. This is interesting because I am going to be writing a paper on a very similar subject this semester: how national heritage is 'created' using select historical events and artifacts, in museums of history and anthropology. I just started reading articles about this very thing.  

[Elisabeth]

 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 kind of thought that's what you really meant, and I hope I didn't sound too abrupt "challenging" you to clarify... Maybe I overreact a bit because I just got so tired in grad school of hearing some of my fellow academics spout postmodernist catch-phrases such as "there is no such thing as an absolute truth," which sounds like a spurious "absolute truth" in and of itself, only these people had no sense of humor and didn't get the joke. Anyway, point taken and thanks for the clarification.

[Lourdes]

Hi I just read your message. I always felt Alexandra was a very depressed woman. Although I am not a doctor, most of her pictures show a Misery. Maybe losing her mother so young affected her. Looking at pictures of her as a teenager, and as an adult woman, one clearly sees a real change of appearance. Alexandra may have loved her husband, but I don't think she was happy.

[Mgmstl]

No I think A.F. was far from a happy person.  She sounds more of a depressed person to me, and most of it seemed to be of her own making.  She probably was the wrong wife for Nicholas, and definitely emotionally unable to deal with the demands of the position of Empress Consort to the Tsar.  While I admit what happened to her during the early years of her marriage can be laid at the feet of the Empress Dowager, & her court.  

Many of her pictures show a person who never smiled, or looked anything but melancholy.  As her cousin Marie Louise told her (I am paraphrasing here) "You always play at being sorrowful, one of the days the Almighty is going to send you some real sorrow then what will you do?"  I think this melancholy was ingrained in her personality, she was a sensistive child who probably felt her Mother's death keenly, and was never the same outgoing child afterwards.  Perhaps growing up around this constant pattern of death & mourning affected her,
but she was definitely NOT a happy person.  

It is sad, because she probably had a great deal to offer a person as friend.  While not one of her "FANS" or or a "FAN" of any of the I.F.'s, I find that I have sympathy for her, and feel that she was given a worse reputation than she deserved.  

[lexi4]

What were Alexandra's positive characteristics and what were the good things she brought to Russia.
One thing that comes to my mind is how dedicated she was when taking care of the wounded soldiers during the war. She did so despite her own health problems and with great kindness.

[rskkiya]

    I will grant only that Alexandra was very good at administrating and creating ad hoc hospitals - she was instumental in organizing up to 87 (as I remenber).

   However as a nurse she was not really reliable. Her own nervous condition often kept her from performing any consistent nursing work.

rskkiya

[bluetoria]

I don't really agree, rskkiya. I think she was a very good nurse who overcame her own troubles in caring deeply about her patients & she succeeded in performing the most unpleasant & menial tasks in hospitals. (E.g. assisting in amputations, which is very difficult even for people who do not suffer from 'nervous troubles' :-/)

Also she took care to reassure the families of the wounded soldiers, writing personally to their mothers with deep empathy as the mother of a suffering son.

Had she not been Tsarina, she might well have been a wonderful nurse. As it was, she had many other responsibilities to deal with at the same time & it was these, rather than her 'nervous troubles' which distracted her from her nursing work.  

[rskkiya]

Bluetoria
    She was a fine and caring person and had good intentions - but her own personal problems made her carreer as a nurse inconsistant. Had she not suffered from nervious complaints and exhaustion, she might have been of greater help... Although running and supplying numerous hopitals and 'proto mash units' (sanitary trains) is certainly no small work. In triing to do everything she limited her ability to do somethings very well.

rskkiya

[Janet_W.]

Or, maybe not!  

Alexandra's legacy is undoubtedly a mixed one. And when talking about it, the "if" factor begins to predominate. "If she hadn't been so shy, "If her son hadn't been hemophilliac," "If the family had been exiled to the Crimea" . . . and so forth.

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. The tragic/mysterious circumstances are, I think, the critical factor; we admire certain women such as Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Marie Curie, Lillie Langtry, and Eleanor Roosevelt, but their deaths came much later in their lives and were not as sudden and/or unexpected.

Alexandra was controversial in her own lifetime--amongst her family, as well as her subjects--and remains controversial to this day. But most will agree that she was serious, well-intentioned, conscientious, loving, and idealistic. Moreover, she was one of Queen Victoria's most beautiful granddaughters--a "Cinderella" who married the handsome prince--and beyond the wealth and splendor, she and her prince loved each other, for better and for worse, for richer and for poorer, through sickness and through health.

These days not too many couples of any station can claim that type of staying power.

[rskkiya]

Or, maybe not!  


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.

So if Alexandra appeared ugly or deformed prior to her demise -- then we would not care about her?

[Janet_W.]

Certainly her beauty added to her mystique. But more than that was the devotion she and her husband had for each other, which continued on even as her looks began to fade.

[lexi4]

I agree Janet. They did remain devoted even until death. That has to mean that they were very good at communicating with one another imho. I also call to mind (I think I read this is Massie) the story of the soldiers during captivity in Tsarkoe Selo I think. Massie wrote about how she won over the guards, how they grew to see her in a different light. That to me indicates that she although she was shy, her warmth and compassion came through in one on one or small group interactions.