Alexandra - Slandered and Hated

[Georgiy]

It's far too simplistic. Many things contributed to the revolution. Alexandra's perceived actions were one of them. Her actual actions were another, but there was much, much more going on that precipitated the revolution.

The whole concept is flawed anyway. If Alexandra were the absolute ruler, why did Nicholas have to abdicate. If she really were the ruler of Russia she would have to. No one passed the crown on to her. Sure she met the ministers and heard their reports, but she in turn passed on that info to the Tsar, from her point of view perhaps, but the buck stopped with him.

[nene]

Now THIS is a hot topic to discuss! I've been reading the messages here regarding Alexandra, and I would like to put in my two cents as well:

How can anyone call Alexandra a stupid and evil woman? In my opinion, that's going too far! Also, to say that she was responsible for communism and the Soviet System, that is just flat out ridiculous! I think it was basically a miscommunication gap between Alexandra and the Russian people.

-I think it would have helped if Alexandra had been better prepared or coached in the role of Empress. Why didn't her mother-in-law, Marie, instruct Alix in this?

-Also, Alix should have made a better effort to be more sociable and be more out there, seeing what's really going on with the Russian people. Instead, she turned more inward, withdrawing from alot of people.

-Regarding Rasputin-I will admit right now that I completely detest this man. In my opinion, I always thought he was a con-man who deluded himself into thinking he was a miracle worker. Anyway, you can't really blame Alexandra for depending on him. I mean, if you gave birth to a son, and he's afflicted with a deadly disease, and you know you're responsible for it, you would want to believe in something, anything, to help your son get better. I'm sure alot of people would have done the same thing.

-Maybe the Russian people should have given Alexandra a chance, a chance to show what she could have done for the country. They should have gotten past their anti-German feelings and see her for the kind, caring, loving woman she was.

And Alexandra was a lovely, kind woman who really wanted to make a difference to the Russian people. She was an exemplary mother, and a loving wife. I guess it goes both ways.

I hope I pointed out some good points regarding Alexandra. And to answer the question-she was not Russia's worst nightmare, not in the slightest.

[leushino]

I just encountered an interesting perspective on Alexandra given by Mosolov, who ran the Secretariat of the Ministry of the Imperial Court:

"She could never become a genuine tsarina due to her personal situation [not specified], and that is a great pity, because with her hard character she could have been of great assistance to His Majesty.  Unfortunately her ideas were even more bigoted than those of His Majesty, so that her support of Nicholas did him more harm than good."

And here is what the tsar said regarding Stolypin's foiled attempts to keep Rasputin away from the empress, as Stolypin reported it to his daughter:

"I agree with you, Pyotr Arkadyevich, but I'd rather have ten Rasputins than one hysterical tsarina.  Of course that explains it all.  The tsarina is ill, seriously ill.  She believes the only person in the whole world who can help her is Rasputin, and it is humanly impossible to persuade her otherwise.  Because in general it is already very difficult to talk to her . . . . "

I find that last line to be a very revealing glimpse into what many view as an idyllic marital relationship.

Stolypin was shot not long after this interchange.  In the three days during which he lay dying, neither the tsar nor tsarina visited the hospital or sent their condolences.  When they attempted to do so after his death, Stolypin's widow refused to receive them.  In receiving Count Kokovtsov, Stolypin's successor, Alexandra told him that she believed God had put Stolypin aside in order to make room for him.  He was appalled by her remark.

People can make all the excuses for Alexandra they want.  But I think the woman was one vindictive piece of work.  There are real reasons almost all of the governing and aristocratic establishments developed an intense dislike of her.

I couldn't agree more. The actions above and the attitude that set in motion those actions (re Stolypin) are indicative of a vindictive spirit.  I don't believe a more unsuitable candidate for tsarina could have been found than Alix of Hesse. There is so much evidence of her psychological disorders that it boggles the mind that some people will intentionally close a blind eye to the damage she brought to the dynasty and ultimately to her immediate family.

However, what use is it to present the evidence when its authenticity is questioned and excuses made?

[CountessKate]

However, what use is it to present the evidence when its authenticity is questioned and excuses made?

But I don't think there is any absolute evidence.  There is just speculation and discussion and opinion.  The 'evidence' about Stolypin only establishes that people thought Nicholas and Alexandra behaved badly towards him, not that Alexandra was a vindictive spirit. We are unlikey to know whether she was the moving spirit or whether Nicholas was - and why exactly one or the other or both together behaved in this way.  Similarly you can argue that there is no evidence for her 'psychological disorders'.  Saying she was hysterical is not evidence.  I personally happen to agree with the view that Alexandra was a disaster for her dynasty and family, but that's just my view - and I think the great thing about these discussions is that my views are constantly being challenged.  You have to present your ideas and expect to get them shot down!

[Romanov_fan]

Alexandra does unfortunatly suffer from often being negatively seen, and she is thus ''slaughtered again and again''. She was a complex person who is rather hard to understand, and it is too easy to see the stereotype of her, rather than see her as the person she was. She was fun, in her own way, that story above proves although that is more relevant to another thread, and it proves the Grand Duchesses did get a chance for a social life, and were not sad and deprived as one thread says. It is interesting how we can compare in this way. Alexandra was different in youth, before some of the extremes of her life took hold, and yet she was the same person too, just one that hadn't known so much shadow.

Her motivation for being so obssessed with Alexei's inheiritance is no doubt complicated as someone stated, although I don't buy the guilt theory. She came from a more liberal background, and then was as autocratic as any Romanov autocrat later in life. One could say that the extremes of behaviour otherwise acceptable took hold. She did write in a certain style, but this doesn't mean anything, anyway, because it was typical for that era.

[griffh]

I love Baroness Buxhoeveden's point about Alexandra in the Preface of her book, "The Life and Tragedy of Alexandra Feodorovna," where she states:

"The Empress's character was very complex.  Love for her husband and children was its dominant trait.  Shew was an ideal wife and mother; her worst enemies could not deny this.  She was a very womanly woman, and not always logically reasonable when it was a case of conflict between reason and affection.  Her intellect was always subordinate to her heart.  In her dealings with other people, her idealism often made her find in them the good that her own nature led her to expect....She never acquired the easy outward manner and ready smile that win the hearts of the public, and her modesty kept her from fighting for the popularity she so ardently desired at heart...Her want of political experience, her trust in the innate goodness of humanity, made her commit many political errors.  But in everything she did, she was guided solely by her love for the country of her adoption...Towards the end the selflessness and spiritual serenity of the Empress grew daily...Her hunger and thirst were for righteousness.  At last, in her Christian submission to the Divine will, she must have found the Truth she sought, and it was the supreme mercy that sent her the fulfillment of the prayer of Ruth and left her with her husband."

The Baroness' words mean a great deal to me because I feel she was not a flatterer but has seen the Empress in a proper perspective.  I believe that Alexandra would have eventually come back to her liberal roots just as her sister Ella did after Serge assassination.  Well anyway that is just a thought.  

[Janet_W.]

" . . . She never aquired the easy outward manner and ready smile that win the hearts of the public, and her modesty kept her from fighting for the popularity she so ardently desired at heart..."

Thank you for quoting that passage from Baroness Buxhoevedon's book, Griffh.  And as you can see, I've singled out a particular section which I think underscores some major differences between Alexandra and her cousin Marie of Romania.

[lovy]

I definitely agree that Alexandra did make the dynasty die down. But she really didn't mean to! She just wanted what was best for Russia, but simply didn't know how to do it and always asked Rasputin for advice. Geez, well maybe he should be known as Tsar Rasputin I.   And Alexandra always told her husband what to do! He went to Stavka but does that stop Alexandra from tormenting him? No! She gave him letters everyday, each explaining what "our Friend" told them to do, and then later on writing of her passionate and physical love for him (once even saying: "Four months we have not slept together...") Once she went too far, and then Nicholas wrote back to her being sarcastic, saying stuff like "...many thanks, for the severe scolding..." and so on. I want to read that letter. Does anyone have it's full thing?

[PAVLOV]

Well, if she did not meddle in politics until the war, as someone has said, she sure made up for lost time, did she not ? Indirectly she did meddle in his political life, and constantly influenced him negatively. She wrote to him telling him how to treat people, and expressed her prejudiced and personal dislikes of various ministers and courtiers, from the day she landed in Yalta right at the beginning.
Read the letters. She meddled constantly, and he allowed her to do so, because he lacked the courage to cross her. He allowed people to bully him, specially his wife. The poor man was henpecked, until the day he died. 
I think she contributed hugely to the way things turned out, starting from day one.
I disagree that the Russian people had a problem with Marie Feodorovna because she was a spendthrift. Please. If you look at the whole Imperial family, from a "western" perspective, they were all spendthrifts. 
Part of the Russian nature is to live life to the fullest, in every sense of the word. Russians love splendour and beauty, just as they lived in misery and pain under Lenin and Stalin.  Look at the architecture and all the other wonderful things the world has inherited from Russia. And they have not changed. I think they loved Marie Feodorovna, she was a dutiful Empress, fun loving, gregarious, loved parties and society and fitted into her role perfectly. I have never read anything negative about her. Its no wonder she disapproved of her daughter in law. They were complete opposites.
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, was also accused of leading a too lavish life, but the English loved her. i think she had a lot in common with Marie Feodorovna.

     
 

[PAVLOV]

Poor thing , yes she was not entirely to blame for the revolution, but she sure fanned the flames furiously, and helped it along by playing perfectly into the hands of the revolutionaries. I think she made their task a lot easier by making, what must surely be, the worst mistakes of any monarch in history and having the worst possible public image. Created by herself, for herself and with no help from anyone else.

Nicholas was just a puppet with no backbone, the poor man was hopeless and incompetent.  To give him his due, I think at the beginning he had a bit of gumption, though. Before Alexandra started meddling and interfering. He had the leftover people from his fathers court to advise him. And  thank God sometimes he listened to them. Well, sort of. But probably because he thought " Papa would have done that" I think Nicholas's ancestors sometimes haunted him, and caused him anguish.
The Hague conference was an example of one good thing he did. After that I think it was downhill all the way, so to speak.

I dont think one should compare her to Marie Antoinette. The two were completely different. The former never interfered in anything and was a bit of an airhead, the second was a meddler in things that did not concern her, and largely schemed and manipulated her family and country to disaster.At least Marie Antoinette had a sense of styule and a sense of humour. She also vindicated herself a bit during her trial.
People who play with fire normally get their fingers burnt, and as they say, " a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing".

Perhaps if the woman had some sort of education, other than sewing and playing the piano...................who knows ?

Can anyone think of anything amazing these two people did for Russia ? I'm thinking, but cant come up with much.


My post will probably rev up the engines of those of you who glamourise her like a movie star.

Sorry !!
       

[Thomas_Hesse]

*sigh*
 
I don't glamourise her but I have read enough original documents to know what a loving, careing and unselfish person she was. And she was self-critical - a virtue not everybody on that forum owns................

I think the voice of your post is most embarrassing and shows that you do not know much about the last Empress.

[Teddy]

Your hatred to The Empress Alexandra is so obvious. What a pity that your knowledge Pavlov is so tiny about her. I feel really sorry for you.
I can't imagine that someone can so hate someone as you do, that you even opens old threads whoes last reply was 3,5 years ag, only so you can show your hatred towards her. Telling the same old story, what you do over and over again in all kind of threads. You take every change to show your dislike towards her.

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

I confess!, I had the attitude to glamorise her, but now that I learned a bit more about Empress Alexandra I have to say that I changed my mind about her.
But, although I discovered her bed sides, I'm still inclined to consider Empress Alexandra as an interesting historical character, and I don't hate her...I'm agree that she committed a lot of mistakes and that she had a bad character, but I don't consider her a bad person, after all.

[Romanov_fan]

One thing I have always considered in Marie Antoinette's favor when evaluating her and Alexandra, is that MA did show signs of maturity later in her life and did grow up. Alexandra's personality was simply fixed, as she was 22 when she married Nicholas and became Empress consort. Her mistakes were in her early 20s and after, whereas MA came to the French court to marry Louis in an arranged marriage at age 14. Many of her mistakes where made as uneducated teenager, struggling to have an heir, who was trying to make the best of an arranged marriage and unfamiliar country where she didn't choose to be, and where she wasn't popular. Alexandra on the other hand was far older and was in a supportive marriage with someone she loved, in a country where she wanted to be, although she too struggled to have an heir- but at least she was known to be fertile, and had children, albeit daughters. MA didn't have any children at all for some years.

[historyfan]

Glamourise...no.  Understand...yes.

Big difference.  Huge.  Canyon-like.