Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

[David Pritchard]

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.

[historyfan]

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.

No, I'm not.  Does it show?  lol!  Well, I only recently began learning about them.  I see that they can be brutal!  It's too bad for poor Alexandra that she had to learn that the (very) hard way.  They certainly hammered her down...with a sledgehammer!

[mcdnab]

A few points:

Firstly the Queen of GB has indicated that only those descendants of hers requiring a surname should use Mountbatten-Windsor. Mountbatten is the badly anglicized version of Battenburg (a morganatic offshoot of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt and Philip was technically a member of the House of Oldenburg not the House of Battenberg/Mountbatten) - the Royal House remains Windsor. As of now technically none of the Queen's male-line descendants need a surname as they are all legally HRH Prince or Princess of Great Britain (though The Earl of Wessex's children at his insistance and to the disappointment of his parents bear the rank of the children of an Earl and use Mountbatten-Windsor although legally they are HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH, Prince James of Wessex Viscount Severn)

That the Hessian House was not insignificant is a perfectly valid point though  - it had already provided two imperial consorts - Wilhelmine Louise (Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeievna) first wife of Paul I and sister of Louis I of Hesse, who died in child birth. Marie daughter of Louis II (though probably fathered by her mother's lover) who became the Empress Marie Alexandrovna wife of Alexander II.

In fact the choice of bride's for Romanov Grand Dukes in the 19th Century was in part designed to avoid marriages that would be regarded as highly political or would upset the European balance. None of the Empress Consorts of Russia have come from high ranking Royal backgrounds (Peter III was married to a well connected by impoverished Princess of Anhalt Zerbst the future Catherine II, Paul married firstly to a Princess of Hesse and secondly an impoverished Princess of Wurttemburg, Alexander I married a Princess of Baden, Nicholas I married Charlotte of Prussia, Alexander II married Marie of Hesse, Alexander III to Marie of Denmark and Nicholas II to Alexandra of Hesse)

Alexander II's choice of Marie of Denmark for his eldest son (and then for the second son after the Cesarevitch's death) was in part because of the fact that Denmark had been so soundly beaten by Prussia - it wouldn't be considered a political match. Ironically her fierce anti-prussian views shared with her sister Alexandra would have a significant influence on Russian policy and a growing distrust of Prussia/Germany throughout Alexander III's reign.

It is myth that all previous Empresses had adapted with ease and become instantly popular perhaps the only two who really made the role their own (largely due to being widowed young) were the two Maria Feodorovna's (wives to Paul I and Alexander III) both were Cesarevna's for a long period of time and adapted well to their new home and religion, both were well loved by their husbands and were popular and charitable whilst living in considerable style.

Turning to Alix, I don't think any of us can doubt that she was a devoted wife and mother, but she was in many ways the worst possible wife for Nicholas II. Had she been married to a stronger, less insecure man like his father or grandfather then she might have made a perfectly acceptable consort.

With Nicholas though her retreat into an isolated, family life, her imperiousness (which her own family commented on), her reluctance to take part in public ceremonies, her rigid morality and her increasing religious fanaticism became a huge liability. Much of this is exused by her apologists on the grounds of her health and the tragedy of Alexei's haemophilia but these traits were noted in the first few years of their marriage.

Ironically in many ways her quiet family life might have been what Russia and the monarchy needed in the early 1900's had Russia been a constitutional monarchy - in just the same way that the quiet domesiticty of Victoria and Albert tied them with the burgeoning British middle class and provided a more 'moral' contrast to the outrageous extravagance and loose morals of Victoria's uncles and high society in general. Or it would have been had Nicholas and Alexandra been willing to recognise that to survive they needed to abandon Nicholas' determination to rule as his father had done especially as he was quite incapable of ruling like that, instead her retreat into the daily life and isolation of the Alexander Palace implied a haughtiness and a distaste for not only the Russian Court, the rest of the Dynasty and society but a distaste for the entire nation.

I think sometimes people tend to excuse her behaviour on the grounds that the family took an instant dislike prompted by the Dowager's attitude - but that tends to overlook the fact that Marie Feodorovna was initially quite welcoming and seems to have initially put aside the fact that she hadn't been keen on the marriage. We also tend to overlook the fact that Marie was in deep mourning for her husband whose death had shattered her. By the time that Marie was recovered and rediscovering her zest for life the rift was established - there were faults on both sides but Alix didn't help herself much and subsequent behaviour pushed more of the family away from them. Nicholas' attitudes to the rest of the family were blamed on Alix rather than the Emperor however unfairly and as Nicholas felt more and more isolated naturally he relied on her and her advice more and more which in turn alienated the family even more. Tragic really.

[David Pritchard]

You are correct in identifying Nikolas II as the root of all of the family's problems. Alexandra's involvement in wider political and familial matters simply highlighted his short comings. A psychiatrist might see their relationship as an unhealthy co-dependency.

While the 18th century successions to the Imperial Throne were messy affairs, they did eliminate the less capable heirs. Even Aleksandr I came to the Throne in the traditional manner despite the Pauline Laws already being in place. Of the four 19th century emperors that succeeded to the Imperial Throne without having to dispose of any family members, only Aleksandr II stands out as a leader. This fact illustrates the short comings of codified male primogenitor rather than succession through survival of the fittest.

[PAVLOV]

I think most people would agree that Alexandra would have found it just as difficult to cope had she been the wife of a provincial goverment official. She was not cut out to be Empress of Russia. She was not a "People Person", shy, withdrawn, self opinionated,socially inept and totally out of touch with what was going on around her.  Having a husband with a weak character did not help either. Perhaps if she had a strong husband, things would have been different.   
Rightfully her sons problems, and the resultant guilt she felt, must also have had a tremendous influence on her, and perhaps she sufferred from post traumatic stress disorder, and chronic depression. She was a good mother in many respects, but I think it was was wrong to alienate her children from the outside world. They had hardly any interaction with the real world, and led a cloistered existence created for them by their mother.
Queen Mary blamed her entirely for the Russian revolution, and said so quite openly.  Of course there were other political factors and the War ,but had the Imperial Family not distanced themselves wilingly from the Russian people, they would perhaps have survived. 
It was not her fault, but she just had the wrong personality and qualifications for the job, and was loathe to listen to good advice, when given by those who could see disaster coming. I have great sympathy for the rest of the family, but feel that she was largely responsible for the way things turned out.

Pity Grand Duchess Vladimir was'nt Empress. She was cut out for it.   
   

[mcdnab]

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.

[historyfan]

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.

How unfortunate, then, that that law existed which prohibited females from ruling the country.  It was the son of Catherine II who instituted this law, am I right?

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?

[Janet Ashton]

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?

I assume you exclude illegitimate ones? 
With male primogeniture, the line would have passed - as indeed it did in reality under the semi-Salic sucession law - from Catherine to Paul to his first born son Alexander and then to the second son Konstantin, who renounced his rights, excluding the illegitimate children of both brothers. Alexander and Konstantin also happened to be the first and second children of Tsar Paul, as well as first and second sons. The throne went next to Nicholas the third son (and ninth child) of Paul, after which the semi-Salic succession was actually functionally irrelevant anyway to who suceeded, since each Tsar from at that point until 1917 left an eldest son as eldest child. (I mean that this would have worked out exactly the same with a succession that followed male primogeniture, as in Britain for example, and even with one that allowed women to take their place according to birth order.)

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).

[historyfan]

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?

[nena]

I think Stana/Anastsaia was name of Montenegrin Princess Anasatsia Nicholaievna (daughter of King Nikola). She was good friend of Empress during early 20th century, and fourth Empress' daughter was named Anastasia too. I think Stana was her god-mother, but I am not sure.

[Janet Ashton]

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?

No - Anastasia Mikhailovna (1860-1922) was the second child and only daughter of Mikhail Nikolevich, youngest son of Nicholas I. Her multiple brothers included the acid-tongued historian Nikolai Mikhailovich and Alexander, the eminence grise (one of them!) of Nicholas II's early reign, who married N's sister Xenia. Anastasia (variously called Nastya and Stassy by her family) married into the Mecklenburg Schwerin line and became mother of the future Queen of Denmark (Alexandrine) and Crown Princess of Germany (Cecile) as well as a son. She subsequently bore an illegitimate son too, and was also known in her day for her heavy gambling and drug habits.....

[historyfan]

Sigh...I have such a hard time keeping everyone straight!  I need a chart or a diagram taped to the wall.  lol

[Selencia]

I'm reading up on her and her family and although this is nothing against her I do think she was quite the snob. Yes she was shy and sensitive but people who are shy can come off multiple ways: the bashful dwarf way and the Mr. Darcy way, Alexandra was definitely the last one. She seemed to be a very open and loving person within her family but not outside of that circle.
I definitely agree that she desperately needed a PR team, she seems to have been a great wife for Nicholas but her temperment made her a bad empress, by that I mean being shy and oversensitive and having to live a public life do not mix.

[Selencia]

The more I read about Alexandra the more I dislike her.

[GoldenPen]

Well, I have 2 view on her... Political speaking I don't believe she took the right path. But beside that I believe she was a good mother, friend, wife and generally speaking a good soul.