Alexandra - Slandered and Hated

[jACOB STEWART]

I believe that if Nicholas had never married Alexandra then the Russian revolution would never have happened.
The Russian court needed an empress whom would be good at socialising and someone whom everyone liked, like Nicholas's mother Marie. However what they got was an almost recluse of an empress that during the world war bullied her husband in firing ministers and doing what she thought was best. If it was not for her facination with the pathetic Rasputin then the Russian people would not have had a hatred for the Imperial family.
Also if Nicholas had not married Alexandra then there wouuld have been no heir with hamophilia and no reclusive royal family. Thanks to Alexandra's possessiveness and stupidity she marked an end to 300 years of Romanov rule and gave communism the chance it needed to establich its self.
The spread of communism throughoput Eastern europe and be blamed on her and the hardship suffered  by people under communist rule in Europe.

Nicholas should have taken the advice of this mother and married the Daughter the the pretender of the French throne. Then the history of Europe would have been totally different and with Nicholas making his own decisions in world war one, Russia may have won instead of surrendering to the German and losing most of its European empire.

Aleexandra Feodarovna- a stupid and evil women!

[David Newell]

I have never read such a one sided view of history as this. To blame Af for communisim, a little harsh I think. She was however not evil, she may have been difficult at times, shown some devastatingly bad judgement. It is I am afraid NichoalsII who was just simply not up to the job. Because of the very nature of Autocracy, poor Nicholas could never see the bigger picture, even a simple change of name or divorce had to signed by him to be law. He was bogged down all the time with a huge amount of admin that could have been done by ministers and the civil service. He was not well educated and trapped by the Imperial system. The revolution had already begun in his father's reign. Nicholas II was just not equiped for the immense task ahead. He was a great family man and a very good army officer. But poor old russia was an 18 century power in a rapidly changing 20th century world. He would have been a very good constituational monarch.

But I must say calling AF evil is not fair she was not. Her war work saw her at her finest, I have just re-read her letters for the early war years, her devotion to the wounded was wonderfull. She had many faults and these did contribute to her unpopularity, but she had many good qualities and these outshine the bad ones.

David Newell, London

[Antonio_P.Caballer]

I think the russian people problems at the beginning of this century had nothing to do with the empress´ realations with the court. People in the country didn´t care if she held three balls in the Winter palace or none at all. Russian peasants had better things to take care of.

[Louise]

I think you just blasphemed the Empress. Evil? Stupid?

That is a very harsh statement. You have to take into account Alix's entire life to understand her sorrow, and personality.

The loss of her mother at a very young age; being raised by her grandmother who instilled in Alix the political belief that women were intelligent beings and could rule. In the same breath, Alix being raised by Queen Victoria in a moribound atmosphere I'm sure forged in Alix the sadness that prevailed.

Please dont forget that Alix had a month to establish a court in Russia, while Dowager Maria had over 15 years to do so.

The birth of daughters, when a son was expected, the ill health of Alix and finally the birth of Alexei only increased her journey to reclusivness.

To blame Alix for the fall of the monarchy and the rise of communism is a far stretch by any imagination.

I could add more, but I am sure that your post will garner more replies.

[RobMoshein]

I must agree with David.
There is SO much more to the causes of the Revolution. I personally doubt that Alexandra's contribution to the fall of the throne was anything more than tangential.  Support for the monarchy had been eroding for years. Remember Alexander II being blown up? Despite the growth of a middle class, Russia was still a peasant nation. 95% of the nation's wealth was held by less than 5% of the population. Russia's economic development was 50 years behind England or the US. Nicholas' letters commenting on his visit to Cowes in 1909 where he saw the then new super beheamoth battleships of Britain are telling. He was awed by their size and power, and was bitterly upset that Russia despite her size and wealth could not begin to produce anything near to them. Russia's domestic production of automobiles by 1914 was miniscule, Germany, France, Britain and the US were light years ahead.  The rail system was not designed to move good around Russia, just to move them centrally to Moscow or Petersburg.  The strains of the War simply exacerbated the huge social stresses already brewing in the population.  Perhaps Nicholas might have had more support from the Aristocracy if Alix were loved, but the people at large simply lost their faith in the Tsarist regime. A Constitutional Monarchy set up in fact in 1905 instead of the empty promises not kept is the only thing I feel might have prevented the Revolution. Alix is just another tragic player, who felt she was doing the best she could, and who genuinely believed in God, the Monarchy and genuinely believed she was supporting the Russian people.

[Valmont]

I think our friend Jacob needs to read a lot more to fully understand the roles AF and N played as the last Romanov rullers.
It is too easy to fall into prejudices if you are not aware of the facts and the motivations each of them had.

Arturo Vega-Llausás

[olga]

"if Nicholas had never married Alexandra then the Russian revolution would never have happened."  the beginnings of the revolution started during the reign of Alexander Pavlovich (1801-1825), when he and his army went to Paris after the defeat of Napoleon. some of the officers came back influenced by the ideas of democracy etc, and so the seeds of the revolutionary movement were sown. most of the groundwork for the revolution was done before the reign of Nikolai Alexandrovich, so no matter who he married the revolution would have occurred anyway.

Russia did not need another social butterfly like Maria Fyodorovna, she needed an Empress that the people could connect to and look to for guidance. the social and financial extravagance of Maria Fyodorovna I'm sure did not endear her to many ordinary Russians.

Alexandra Fyodorovna's 'fascination' with Rasputin is understandable and justified, even if it wasn't back then. she did not 'bully' Nikolai Alexandrovich into making decisions concerning government, she made them herself.  even when she expressed opinions about matters that the Tsar had control over, it was not often that he heeded her advice.

the reclusivness of the imperial family was apparent even before the birth of Alexei Nikolaevich so you cannot blame Alexandra Fyodorovna for that. and even if Nikolai Alexandrovich had married Helene of France, how do you that she would not have produced many more daughters and no sons at all?

blame for the end of the Romanov dynasty ultimately falls into the hands of Nikolai Alexandrovich, a Tsar totally unsuited to ruling Russia, given his upbringing, personality and various beliefs.

Russia would have never won the war. full stop. i think this one needs no explaining.

and even if Russia had won the war and the revolution never happened, how do you know that everything would have been peachy from then on. it's just like saying that if Hitler had been killed in world war one then the fascism of Italy and Germany would have never happened. far worse dictators and tyrants could have emerged (although it is hard to imagine)

and finally, have you ever read up on communism for yourself? read the works of Marx, Lenin, Engels, etc and assembled your thoughts instead of re-iterating the capitalist American propaganda that is constantly shoved down our throats?    

[Janet Whitcomb]

Waaayyy too much blame being placed on the shoulders of one individual, Jacob Stewart.

Russia was a powerkeg--literally and figuratively--long before Alexandra came on board. Furthermore, if she had been a Messalina-type, I might buy into your theory to some degree, but Alexandra was a well-meaning, charitable, industrious person.  Her physical health was never outstanding and her emotional health, it is true, was tragically compromised by the knowledge that she had given Russia a hemophilliac tsarevich.  She did her very best to ameliorate the situation, and although she certainly had personality flaws, I wonder how many among us are without similar or at least comparable flaws?  

We know quite a lot about Alexandra because she was in a high-profile situation.  Many other princesses, and princes, and for that matter statesmen and other politicos, were not in the public eye nearly as much--then or now--and yet how many of them would hold up to our scrutiny? More importantly, how would any of us hold up in such a situation?  

Admittedly you have introduced an opinion at this forum comparable to waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull.  Many of us admire Alexandra; most of us are at least sympathetic to her foibles and regret her condemnation and downfall.  Considering your vociferous and one-sided attack against this woman, I have to ask if you are the type of person who enjoys yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building?!    

[BobAtchison]

Janet:

I second what you posted.  Also, all of Alexandra's enemies agreed that she wasn't involved in politics up until Nicholas left for the front.  

I think it was wishful thinking on the part of Russian monarchists of the time that Alexandra that was making all the decisions and not Nicholas.  That allows them to take the responsibility off of the shoulders of the Tsar and place them on his wife.  I thinks that's unfair.  Nicholas made all of his decisions himself.  He resisted advice or being pushed, he seldom, if ever, responds to Alexandra's recommendations in her lettters.  The fact that there opinions usually matched should come as no surprize....

Bob

[David Newell]

Well I knew I would not be alone in questioning this chaps views. AF was a many faceted women and I have to say my old blood boiled a little. To call her evil was just not bloody fair!!! (please excuse the Anglo Saxon language. I am also glad that I am not alone in my reply. I tried to give clear reasons to someone I am sure needs to read a lot more on this vast subject. I tried to defend AF with out being a apologist. That I do not need to do for her.

David Newell, London

[David Newell]

I might be a little more convincing if I could type !!!

[Almedingen]

I've always thought that the Russian monarchy's troubles started with the assassination of Alexander II, which in turn made Alexander III rule they way he did which in turn affected Nicholas II.  

Does anyone else think this or am I wrong?  I've always wanted to know more about Alexander III.  I can't imagine having to see your father dying after an assassination attempt and then knowing that you're  the next emperor.

[Janet Whitcomb]

I think you have something there, Almedingen, although I also would fault Catherine the Great turning reactionary in her later years.  

Plus the vastness of the empire itself, and a whole lot of other sociological and geopolitical issues.

Dominos, anyone?!   :-/

[Jackswife]

 I absolutely believe Alexander II's execution had a deep impact on Alexander III (and by extension, Nicholas II.) AIII IMHO completely embraced the historic idea of absolute autocracy, and his inflexibility and abhorrence of any further reforms, set Russia on its inevitable path. Alexandra was most definitely not a socialite a la Minnie, and while this may have been off-putting to the party-loving fashionistas of the court, it was not a cause of the Revolution per se. As we have seen so much with   the Romanovs, they were complex humans (as we all are!) and were products of their times, upbringings, education, and experiences.

[Jake]

If only Alexander II had not been blown up then there would probably be a Russian monarchy today. E=When he dies he had the plans for a Russian democracy in his pocket that he was going to sign after his ride out in the carriage. if only the bombs had missed him then the course of history would have been so much different.