Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

[Kalafrana]

'That wouldn't have been an issue, had the public not already decided they hated her.  Well, wait, let me rephrase - it would have been an issue, but not an incapacitating one.  After all, Queen Victoria virtually went into hiding for years after the death of Prince Albert, and people grumbled, but they got over it (if her Jubilee turnout was any indication!)'

There was more than grumbling. According to Christopher Hibbert (Queen Victoria, a Personal History), there was serious alarm at the growth of republicanism up to 1871, when, fortuitously, the Prince of Wales got typhoid. By that time too, most of Victoria's children were adult and those who lived in Britain were doing their bit. And we should not forget that up to Albert's death Victoria had been very popular.

[PAVLOV]

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. Alexandra had a husband, who was the Emperor. ( Well sort of, I suppose ) She ended up achieving nothing, and was hated by everyone. Why ? Was this the fault of the people, or her own ? Usually in life one gets out what you put in.

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.

Perhaps many people dont think its fair to compare Queen Victoria to Empress Alexandra.  Why not ? She was her Granmother. Perhaps she should have followed her example. She was a huge influence on Alexandra's life. But this example probably also had no effect on Alexandra, like everything else.

Alexandra lay on her sofa, and was a failure from day one, until the very last minute in the Ipatiev house.




 

[Kalafrana]

I think Alexandra managed to follow the worst aspects of Victoria's example, not the best! Reading Hibbert's book, it becomes clear that Victoria did have a reclusive side and also a very autocratic side. However, she was prepared to act on advice, at least at times, unlike Alexandra. Also, she did not take her family into seclusion with her, partly because her eldest children were adult or approaching adulthood at the time Albert died, and starting to make their own way in the world (Victoria married, the Prince of Wales at university, Alfred in the Navy, Alice betrothed).

Ann

[wildone]

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.

I think the real difference was that Queen Victoria had several adult children who could shoulder her responsibilities.  As far as I know, she never traveled farther than Germany in her lifetime -- certainly not to the farthest reaches of her empire.  However, her children and grandchildren did -- several times.  They also performed countless good acts in Britain itself.  When public opinion turned in Victoria's favor again, after a decade of her seclusion and her subjects' growing unrest, it was due to sympathy towards the Prince of Wales during his near-fatal illness. 

Alexandra's daughters were starting to take on responsibility during the war, but never had the chance to rise into the spotlight and taken their mother's place.



 

[CountessKate]

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.

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.

[historyfan]

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.

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.

You make very good points about Queen Victoria.  She wasn't really sound, emotionally - I don't mean that she was unfit as a monarch, far from it - but she was very passionate, and could be stubborn, willful, obstinate.  She was a hothead.  Prince Albert was the front line when she decided to do battle.

Yes, she (and Albert) took their share of lumps from politicians, the press, the public, and Punch magazine...but they were always redeemed.  Alexandra never was.  Nothing she did was right.  When she went out, she was criticized for her "cold, unsmiling countenance" and blotchy complexion, and extreme shyness.  When she didn't go out, she was criticized for that.  When she helped, tried to form knitting circles, circulated the wartime hospitals as a nursing sister, ran the bazaars, none of that was good enough either.  Knitting circles weren't "befitting" an empress, some soldiers were embarrassed at being treated by their Tsaritsa. 

I'm using a lot of absolute "always" and "never" statements, I realize, but 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.

[CountessKate]

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.

Well, Victoria had about 30 years in which to gradually come out of retirement, and was never faced with the severe polarisation of public opinion in the face of the national trauma of a global war.  Under such circumstances, there is a huge amount of demonisation - the British did it with the Germans, and loyal British subjects like Prince Louis of Battenberg paid the price of public paranoia about The Enemy.  He was fortunate that the British were not under such pressure that they needed a greater safety valve, in that he was merely forced to retire, rather than imprisoned or shot, but Alexandra was too good a target to miss and all the mass of inefficiency and corruption which was the Russian imperial government and it's inability to successfully carry out a war could be blamed on the enemy agent who was sitting up there with the Tsar, especially when he made the stupendous mistake of exposing her to full public scrutiny by going to the front.  She was hopeless at ruling, but frankly it wasn't possible to rescue the regime and of course she got all the blame for everything which went wrong.  Her previous seclusion meant that few people knew what she was like, her association with Rasputin was highly suspect and mysterious, and her German origin only added to public suspicion and hostility.  Queen Victoria's reputation had time to recover from her errors such as her seclusion, and her dependence on John Brown, and she was unquestionably British born and bred.  But she had the time and she didn't have the war.  Alexandra didn't have the time and she did have the war.  Both women made grave errors, but Queen Victoria was able to come out triumphant.  Alexandra wasn't.

[Kalafrana]

'Queen Victoria's reputation had time to recover from her errors such as her seclusion, and her dependence on John Brown, and she was unquestionably British born and bred.  But she had the time and she didn't have the war.  Alexandra didn't have the time and she did have the war.  Both women made grave errors, but Queen Victoria was able to come out triumphant.  Alexandra wasn't.'

I agree. Victoria had been popular before Albert's death (though I don't think Albert ever inspired much affection), and her reputation had time to recover after the nadir of the 1860s. Alexandra did not have those advantages.  However, Victoria did learn to some extent from her mistakes and came to recognise that she needed to fulfil the public role of a monarch at least some of the time. Alexandra seems to have got more fixed in her views as time went on, not less. Victoria did also  have the advantage of having adult children, and later grandchildren, who could take on a public role. Obviously, Alexandra's daughters were too young for that, except Olga and Tatiana during the war, but even had they been older I'm not sure that Alexandra would have allowed them to move away from her and take on a public role in their own right. Just as a comparison, Arthur of Connaught travelled to Japan to present the Garter to the Emperor in 1902 when he was nineteen, and had already seen active service in the South African War (and the future Edward VII was eighteen when he visited America in 1860).

Ann

[CountessKate]

I agree that Victoria's family did indeed help with the public image that needed to be maintained.  Victoria constantly carped about 'society' and the evils of the Prince and Princess of Wales fashionable life, but at least they were there, highly visible, doing the royal thing, and so were the more respectable siblings, and later on the younger generation were brought on board.  It's hard to know if Alexandra would have allowed her daughters much of a high-profile role - while their role as nurses during the war was highly noble, it suggests her political priorities were sadly lacking since the imperial family desperately needed to show themselves to be publicly supporting the war effort by inspecting such institutions as hospitals, not working in them.  She may well have continued the overprotection of her daughters later on.

[PAVLOV]

Just like any public figure today, its about marketing yourself correctly, in order to create the right public image. Judgement, listening to the right advisors and sensiblity. Doing damage control quickly, and at the right time, when things go wrong.
Alexandra's image was wrong, wrong, wrong.

She had 21 years, and all the advice anyone could have, to make something of herself. She had more than enough time.
She also had a very large family in Russia, her sister, and all the other Grand Ducal families. Why did they not carry out public duties in the same way as the British Royal family does today, and did in Queen Victoria's day ?
I know Grand Duchess Vladimir did, and so did Marie Feodorovna. But one does not know how much they did inside Russia, and how visible they made themselves to the cross section of Russian people.
 
Had they all participated as a Family unit in these Royal responsibilites, perhaps the peoples attitude would have been different. Nicholas should perhaps have listened to his uncles more, and had the ability either to apply their advice judiciously, or dispense with what he thought was self serving and wrong for Russia.. They must surely have been more knowledgible, and must have had SOMETHING positive to contibute to the family ?

Yet most of what they did was percieved in a negative light.
Perhaps if Alexandra had not been so arrogant and prejudiced towards most of the Russian Family, and also negatively influencing her husbands attitude towards them, a better image of the Russian Royal Family could have been created.  Like you say CountessKate,the girls were certainly old enough, and capable, to go out and open the odd hospital, Im sure. Yet the mother virtually locked them up like nuns.

Yes Queen Victoria had a large family who in many cases shouldered her burden. Once again, so did Alexandra, but she was too arrogant, haughty and autocratic. Instead she went out of her way to alienate her Russian family.

Singularly, Marie Feodorovna was probably the most dutiful person in the family, I think. Even dancing at a ball and having a good time, and being seen by a thousand people in the Winter Palace, is better than lying on your sofa at home.

Alexandra was too frightened to move out of her comfort zone.Too frightened to do her duties. Using any excuse, illnesses, her perception of an "evil" St Petersburg Society,  her badly behaving Russian Family, her sons illness, her nerves, the revolutionaries, anything not to have to perform as an Empress of Russia.

Queen Victoria did have a few problems with the British people from time to time, but seen as a whole, she remains the most popular and beloved monarch in the history of Britain. I think Elizabeth II, will be accorded the same status by history.

     
 

[Kalafrana]

Pavlov

I think, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken, that the idea of a public service role for royalty was less developed in Russia than in Britain and elsewhere in Europe at this time. The Grand Dukes were expected to serve in the army or navy, but there wasn't a lot else.

However, given that Alexandra believed that the British example was best, she could have done a lot more to develop a public service role for herself and her elder daughters than she actually did, especially after the war began. Though working in a hospital was entirely worthy, I suspect it only gained limited public attention, especially as the hospital was on the imperial estate at Tsarskoye-Selo, and anyway this good example was soon entirely submerged in the furore over Rasputin's influence. I wonder what, if any, difference it would have made if Olga and Tatiana, instead of working in the hospital under their mother's eye had gone out regularly, separately or together, to visit hospitals, convalescent establishments etc, and such visits had been widely reported.

More generally as regards the Imperial Family, there was fairly limited commitment to the war effort from the male members. Apart from Oleg Konstantinovich, who was killed early on, all the younger members gravitated to the Stavka within a short time, if they didn't simply stay in Petrograd (apart from Mikhail Alexandrovich, who commanded a division). Tatiana Konstantinovna's husband, Konstantin Bagration-Mukhransky, was also killed, but I don't suppose he was well known to the public. Given that Russia lost 2 million men killed during the war, and even larger numbers wounded. there was a definite moral need for the Romanovs to be sharing the hardships of their subjects, or at least appear to be. Instead, the Grand Dukes kept away from the front, or kept their sons from the front (and Paul Alexandrovich not only had both his sons serving as ADCs, but his stepson Alexander von Pistolkors found himself a 'cushy number' in the Imperial Chancery!) The cynic in me can't help wondering how much the Imperial Family's stock would have been improved if Dimitri Pavlovich, dashing young Horse Guards officer, had been killed or badly wounded instead of spending his time in some vague ADC role or partying back home. To be fair to Dimitri, he did see action with his regiment early on, but before long his father had him moved to the Stavka. By contrast, though the Prince of Wales was kept out of the front line (much to his disgust), he did serve in a forward headquarters, and his brother the future George VI served as an ordinary midshipman and then sub-lieutenant for all long as his digestion allowed, all of which was faithfully reported in the press (George VI got up from a sick bed to take part in the Battle of Jutland). More recently, a good deal was made in the British newspapers of the fact that the son of a Lieutenant-General lost both legs in Afghanistan a few months ago.

[mcdnab]

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!

[Kalafrana]

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. In Britain the royal family, though nothing like as publicised as today, were 'known' to the public generally, and their public role translated quite easily into a 'war role'. So, for instance, in August 1914 there were plenty of pictures in the newspapers of the Prince of Wales on route marches with the Grenadier Guards and Prince Albert on board ship. No doubt lesser known figures such as Arthur of Connaught and Alexander of Teck were photographed in khaki setting off for France and people knew who they were. Ditto ladies like Princess Marie Louise with her hospital. Prince Mary's Christmas boxes for the troops in France in 1914 was very well known. The literacy of the population in general and the development of cheap newspapers can also only have helped the British royal family.

More recently, Prince Harry's public image has improved noticeably since he went to Afghanistan.

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

[CountessKate]

The literacy of the population in general and the development of cheap newspapers can also only have helped the British royal family.

Indeed, the development of the popular media was of the greatest importance to the British royal family in transforming their role from political heads of state to their modern public figurehead role, and it began well before WWI.  If you read womens' magazines such as The Ladies Realm, from the 1890s onwards when photograpic illustrations became much cheaper to reproduce, there are many, many photos and articles about royalty, British and foreign, so there was a clearly huge public interest.  With regard to the Russians, one must remember that the leaders of the revolution were from the literate classes, and were as likely to be influenced by good PR as the middle classes of Britain who could see in the inexpensive papers every day, what their royals were (at least publically) up to.  Similarly the German Empress was constantly photographed smiling graciously from carriages, receiving flowers from children, at charity events, etc. etc. and was imensely popular as the personification of German motherhood, regardless of her private unpleasantness to her mother-in-law which of course was invisible to the majority of her subjects.  I won't say, that if Alix had been constantly in front of the public in the same benevolent way, that the russian revolution wouldn't have happened, but it might not have had such catastrophic effects on the imperial family. 

[PAVLOV]

I think it would have been easier for Alexandra to win over the lower classes of Russia, by doing very simple things. She should have started at the bottom. They had a reverance and religious sense of wonder and respect for their Tsar right up to the end, and she could easily have done so much.
St Petersburg society and the Aristocracy saw right through her within weeks.

The more one delves into the situation, the more you realise the enormous role her inadequacy played in the scheme of things. She almost invited disaster, and in the end suceeded in giving the people who destroyed Russia many of the tools they needed to do so. Nicholas came as very close second.

She had the knack of making strangers immediately.

I dont actually think one should compare her to anyone else actually, because nobody else failed so spectacularly at what they did as she.