I am so grateful that our administrator's research that backed up my very limited research. As a new comer I often feel a bit green.
I think that my point in wanting to dialog on this topic is that, without wanting to make a saint out of Alexandra, in the past, it has been easier for historians to pull down Alexandra than it has been for them to really deal with the complexity of the period. And while there are hopeful signs, such as the Greg's wonderful biography, and more recently Carol N.'s book which is really one of the first sympathic portraits of Alexandra, it does not seem as though anyone has been able to approach the subject with the kind of comprehensive compassion, humor and honesty that Pope-Hennesy was able to do when he wrote Queen Mary's life.
Queen Mary's strengths and weaknesses are so similar to Alexandra's, the extreme shyness, the distain of pomp, the strong loyalty to the monarchy, the philanthropic impulse to help those who are suffering, the frugalness and at the same time a love of beauty, a regalness without being ultra-fashionable, and most of all the ablilty to be a true friend and to deeply value friendship.
Of course Alexandra had great personal beauty which made her into something of an icon. (As late as 1909, when Balanchine was a little cupid in the Imperial Ballet, Alexandra asked to have him come up and sit in her lap during the performance and he said that she had the glamour of Grace Kelly).
Pope-Hennesy was able to give such a comprehensive picture of Queen Mary that dealt with the complexities of her role as Queen in such a balanced way, that one could understand who she really was without having to resort to flattery or distain.
I know that it is much more difficult to write about Czarist Russia because one has to deal with belief in many things that the twentieth century found fradulent, like the possibiliy of spiritual healing. Belief or disbelief in spiritual healing, alone, has an enormous impact on the way one looks at Rasputin and Alexandra.
And, as someone brought up in this discussion, there is eighty years of anti-Czarist Soviet propaganda to contend with, which cast everyone but the Communists in the role of degenerate, cruel, depraved, and frivilous, villians of the people.
But, take something like the German spy mania that swept the civilized world during WWI. It caused Americans of German decent to be axe-murdered in the mid-west, it banished German culture, the classical masters of German music, art, pets, foods, and even Christmas trees all to vanish from Allied countries during the war.
The fact that Alexandra's brother-in-law, Louis Mountbatten lost his position in the British Navy and his title to the anti-german war mainia in England during the WWI, or the fact that Alexandra's cousin Sophie of Greece and her family almost lost their lives to arsons who burned down one of their palaces because of war histeria, has never been mentioned to give context to what Alexandra was facing at the same time in Russia.
The anti-german hostility against Alexandra seems to be explained, instead, as something she brought on herself through unwise inquiries about the condition of German prisioners of war or Rasputins dubious connection with possible German agents. In fact, Alexandra did not have to do anything, exept breath, in order to the victim of war histeria, any more than Sophie of Greece or Louis Mountbatten.
At least the German haters in Greece got some satisfaction in burning down a palace and almost killing the Greek King and Queen, and the German-haters in England found some satisfaction in destroying Louis Mountbatten's honor and life ambition and lowering his rank, but the German haters in Russia could not dislodge Alexandra. It would take a palace revolution to do that.