Relationship between Alexis and Rasputin

[Alexandre64]

Hello,
In a book that I read, it is written Alexis was hostile to Rasputin,
and I would like to know if this was true, where hostility imaginary

[Sarushka]

I don't think I've ever read anything like that. Which book was it in?

[Alexandre64]

I read in the "criminal investigation" of Sokoloff, this assertion is supported by
the testimony of Bitner and the other member of the suite.

[Sarushka]

I read in the "criminal investigation" of Sokoloff, this assertion is supported by
the testimony of Bitner and the other member of the suite.

Well, that explains why I've never read that -- I don't have a copy of Sokoloff.

Would you mind posting a few relevant quotes? I'd be interested to see them.

[Alexandre64]

Hello,
Here is a quote from Biner, who appears in his testimony, but before I believe it is necessary to put in the situation.

One day, Bitner  range the table  of Alexis, Bitner said it lacks the photo of Rasputin, and this makes the attempt, Alexis then asks him what it is doing, Bitner replied it strives "icon" Alexis then replied: "The icon, the child replied with a laugh, it's not an icon, do not take the trouble to look"

Finally: "I clearly felt the irony and hostility toward Rasputin" Bitner said in his testimony.

It is written on the same page, "For the other members of the Imperial house this hostility is no doubt

[Belochka]

Hello,
In a book that I read, it is written Alexis was hostile to Rasputin,
and I would like to know if this was true, where hostility imaginary

Your impressions are indeed imaginary!

The remarks provided in Sokolov are hearsay. Matrena described an alleged "feeling" that was claimed to been experienced by Bitner.

Margarita

[Belochka]

For comparison this is my translation of the Russian text:

The question asked by the investigator: "How did the Tsar's children regard Rasputin?"

"Once, when the Naslednik was ill in Tobolsk, Bitner the teacher was by his bedside, she, tidying his table, noticed that a portrait of Rasputin was missing.
Believing, that the portrait had fallen, Bitner began to search for it on the floor.
The Naslednik asked her, what she was looking for.
Not wanting to name Rasputin, Bitner said, that she was looking for an icon.
The boy laughed: "Well what an icon! It's not an icon! Stop searching!
Bitner replied: "From his words I clearly felt irony. I knew, that he was speaking about the Rasputin portrait, which in reality was not on the table. Clearly feeling, that his tone sounded unfavorably towards Rasputin."
 
Now one can ask how any reasonable person could consider this nonsensical testimony to be based on the semblance of truth?

Margarita

[Sarushka]

The scenario itself seems plausible enough to me (which is to say, I don't think Bitner was necessarily making the whole thing up) but her interpretation of the alleged conversation does sound skewed.

For instance, she tells Aleksei she's looking for an icon when she's really looking for a portrait. She never mentions Rasputin's name but assumes Aleksei knows who she's talking about. I think it's odd that the conversation was so vague, and yet Bitner is so sure Aleksei knew exactly what she meant.

If he was indeed aware that Bitner was alluding to Rasputin, it sounds to me as though Aleksei was laughing at Bitner herself for being such a sissy about mentioning the starets, and/or for referring to a portrait as an icon. IMO, if the conversation indeed took place as Bitner recalled it, she likely projected her own feelings about Rasputin onto Aleksei's reply.

[Belochka]

It should be recognized that Bitner did not herself view Rasputin favorably.

Thus it may be proposed that her impression, i.e. her "feelings" were the ones that were being projected rather than what she allegedly may have perceived.

The entire discourse, as provided in the Sokolov book is based on a secondhand recall and NOT based on actual face-to-face testimony. That consideration alone gives rise to suspicion as to whether the described scenario had ever taken place. I suspect it did not.

Margarita

[Sarushka]

The entire discourse, as provided in the Sokolov book is based on a secondhand recall and NOT based on actual face-to-face testimony. That consideration alone gives rise to suspicion as to whether the described scenario had ever taken place. I suspect it did not.

Fair enough.

[Georgiy]

In his diary, Alexei refers to him as G. Fimich.  (I.E Grigory Efimovich)

[Sarushka]

In his diary, Alexei refers to him as G. Fimich.  (I.E Grigory Efimovich)

Interesting. Is that how all the children referred to him?

[Belochka]

In his diary, Alexei refers to him as G. Fimich.  (I.E Grigory Efimovich)

Interesting. Is that how all the children referred to him?

No. Mariya and Olga wrote "Grigorii" in their diaries.

[RealAnastasia]

Hmmm...I can't imagine a single Alexandra's child being hostile to Rasputin. And muchless Alexei, for all the reasons we already knows. I highly doubt about Alexei having a bad relationship with Rasputin.

RealAnastasia.

[Belochka]

Hmmm...I can't imagine a single Alexandra's child being hostile to Rasputin. And muchless Alexei, for all the reasons we already knows. I highly doubt about Alexei having a bad relationship with Rasputin.

RealAnastasia.

You are correct. Alexei in reality had little face-to-face contact with Rasputin throughout the years when Rasputin visited Tsarskoe Selo. When they did meet, it was largely because Alexei was very ill. Their first meeting had a atmosphere of conviviality. Rasputin recited a number of bedtime stories.

The idea that Alexei might have demonstrated a modicum of hostility towards a man who only declared compassion towards him is utterly absurd.

Margarita