Alexandra - Slandered and Hated

[Thomas_Hesse]

One cannot compare nowadays education with the views around the turn of the century.
Actually I think Alexandra was very modern in many ways - and please keep in mind that they were the first family of the largest Empire of the day. Bodyguards, papparazzi and such were daily routine for the Romanovs. Very understandable that Alexandra wanted to enable her children to develop even another more free layer of their personalities.

[Janet Ashton]

The second thing which should have been done, in my humble opinion, was to appoint an emergency " council" composed of a cross section of people from different levels, including Nicholas's uncles, to assist in running the country during the time her husband was playing war at the front. The Duma was constantly being disbanded, that together with her constant " hiring and firing" of people, did not contribute to stability or continuity.
Perhaps there were many other things she could have done if she thought carefully about the singularly difficult situation she found herself in. Thought about them intelligently.

I think that she really believed that God had put her in charge of Russia at that time, to the exclusion of everyone else.

I am going to be shot down in flames for saying this.

 
I sometimes wonder if she influenced her husbands decision to engage in the disastrous Japanese war ? Although he also did not listen to good advice.

Considering all the disasters afterwards, I have this theory that she influenced this one as well. It just seems to be an  Empress Alexandra  "special" . Perhaps I am wrong. But I think about this one very often.

I have no interest in shooting anyone down in flames, but neither do I have any interest in being accused of looking upon some historical character as a rock star! :-) I have my views about this, and they are based on my interpretation of the way history was heading.

Nicholas II had a messianic views of his own role - and it was politically aggressive. He learned this at his father's knee, just as he learned to play divide and rule amongst the "wise men" his father bequeathed him as ministers. Is your contention that an autocracy can work because  Alexander was surrounded by some sensible councilors? It wouldn't be mine. It's in the nature of these systems that anyone who becomes too influential whilst deprived of the office of Prime Minister thus sows the seeds of his own destruction, both amongst his fellows and indeed with the "Autocrat".

This situation caused massive problems for Nicholas at the start of the reign, whilst his own predilection as "Autocrat" for extra-ministerial advisors (including table-turners etc, starting before he married Alexandra) allied to his cloud-cuckoo-land notion of his politico-religious role in Asia was what brought him to war with Japan. For the third time in a century, Russia finds itself forced to consider a change in government as the result of a disastrous war. Enter Duma.

At this point Nicholas has two choices: he can work with it or he can do what he can to reduce its power. Alarmed at what he has done in convening it, he adopts the latter course, and he makes this plain from the start to his advisers.

Another war comes along. By this point, the suspicion and mistrust between Nicholas and his government (all arms of it) is so great that the imperial family become object of all manner of rumours, and competent ministers can barely be found. Once appointed, men last little time. Nicholas and Alexandra are partially responsible for this constant reshuffle, but certainly not entirely, at least not on a day-to-day level. Whether their overall policy can be blamed is another matter.

I don't think Alexandra was any better or worse a mother than most royal parents; she was probably rather better than many. There is absolutely no evidence that she urged Nicholas to war with Japan; there is plenty of evidence that she opposed the declaration of war in 1914, and every likelihood that she did in 1904, considering her own background and the problems engendered between Britain and Russia as a consequence, as well as her genuine dislike of bloodshed, which is apparent in her own correspondence.

So that is my view: as far as I am concerned, Alexandra's main contribution was in encouraging Nicholas on a path on which he was already decided.

[Alixz]

I wish that some posters would simply read the pages that were posted in the past.  Some of the questions are asked and answered over and over and over again.

I am with Teddy.  *boring*.

Rasputin did not in any way save Alexei's life.  I have said again and again that after the murder and before the Tobolsk sled debacle Alexei did very well without Rasputin.  Rasputin was Alexandra's crutch - not Alexei's.  I would not let that lecherous old man any where near my virgin daughters, especially at bed time while they were in their night gowns.

I know that he fooled Alexandra and that I am looking at him from 100 years later and I have a lot more information as I read in my comfy chair. But just the image of Rasputin in the nursery brings at least child endangerment if not child abuse to my mind. The psychological not physical abuse of four young girls having to watch their mother who was their world "bow" to a man of such evil intent and no virtue.

Alexandra had no self respect when it came to Rasputin and his group.  She refused to believe what was shown to her and proven by Spiro and others.  She was intentionally blind when it came to his faults and she convinced herself that he did indeed "heal" when the Tobolsk months prove that he did not.

[Janet Ashton]

I wish that some posters would simply read the pages that were posted in the past.  Some of the questions are asked and answered over and over and over again.

I am with Teddy.  *boring*.

Rasputin did not in any way save Alexei's life.  I have said again and again that after the murder and before the Tobolsk sled debacle Alexei did very well without Rasputin.  Rasputin was Alexandra's crutch - not Alexei's.  I would not let that lecherous old man any where near my virgin daughters, especially at bed time while they were in their night gowns.

I know that he fooled Alexandra and that I am looking at him from 100 years later and I have a lot more information as I read in my comfy chair. But just the image of Rasputin in the nursery brings at least child endangerment if not child abuse to my mind. The psychological not physical abuse of four young girls having to watch their mother who was their world "bow" to a man of such evil intent and no virtue.

Alexandra had no self respect when it came to Rasputin and his group.  She refused to believe what was shown to her and proven by Spiro and others.  She was intentionally blind when it came to his faults and she convinced herself that he did indeed "heal" when the Tobolsk months prove that he did not.

It can be frustrating when individuals ask a simple factual question repeatedly (especially one they could find out with a few seconds research) but I don't think posters should be discouraged from seeking opinions or have to accept an individual's view as the "right" answer.

I have never read any suggestion anywhere that Rasputin was a danger to young girls; Alexandra might just as well have excluded their womanising Romanov uncles and great-uncles from their nursery, and there is no evidence that she did. According to the account of these visits, the eldest was no older than fourteen when the last one took place; and clearly the governess was also present as she talked about it later. (Worth noting too that Alexandra complained about Tiutcheva spreading "Stories about the children" with the implication that something she was saying was untrue. We don't know what, but it's a point to ponder).

True: Rasputin did not help Alexei in Tobolsk. I have no particular view of whether he did so on any other occasion, but I don't think there can be any automatic "read-across" from one instance to another. It does not follow that because he wasn't around to help in that occasion he did not do so on any other. There's no direct evidence that Alexandra thought he literally kept the boy alive, though we may infer that she did; rather the evidence suggests that she looked to him for assistance and advice in dealing with the potentially fatal illness, which on one occasion at least apparently included giving advice that the family regarded as crucial in stopping the bleeding. But most historians see the Nicholas-Alexandra-Rasputin relationship as being far more complex than that; the argument that she kept him around because she thought her son would die without him is one developed by sympathizers in the household and elsewhere right after the revolution, and it rather falls down when people look at the rest of their lives and their dealings with a whole assortment of Holy Men and advisers.

I don't know if anyone has made these points elsewhere in this thread or on the board, but since I'm inclined to give my own opinion while finishing coffee in the morning and before starting on something else I have done that...:-)

[Sarushka]

*boring*

Rude.

[Teddy]

*boring*

Rude.

Difference of opinion.

[Alixz]

I never suggested that anyone should take my opinion or anyone else's as solid truth, I was only mentioning that the same questions have been asked of me and answered by me several times.  i.e. why I think it was "child abuse" etc.  I have explained that many times.

The fact that Alexandra was a "sterling"mother (and I don't think she was) does not mitigate the mistakes she made in public life.

Her obsession with mystics including Rasputin put a tarnish on the Imperial Family.  Her negligence concerning her public duties hurt not only her image, but the image of the entire family.

And when I said she was proud, I meant that she was too proud, stubborn, stupid to accept the advice of those who did have her welfare in mind.  Grand Duke Paul and Grand Duchess Ella to name a few.

As her grandmother said about the jewelry,  'Now, Alix, don't get too proud." However, Alix let being an empress go to her head and she became "too proud" about everything.

Remember that Shakespeare said in Julius Caesar, "The evil men do lives on.  The good is interred with their bones."

The evil that both Rasputin and Alexandra did has far out lived any good either may have done.  If Alexandra was not so neurotic, so much could have been prevented.

JMHO

[PAVLOV]

Yes rude. If you are not interested in what someone else has posted, ignore it. OR CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING INTERESTING YOURSELF !!

My humblest apologies if I have bored you.

[Teddy]

Yes rude. If you are not interested in what someone else has posted, ignore it. OR CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING INTERESTING YOURSELF !!

My humblest apologies if I have bored you.

Don't hide, behind your mothers' skirt!

You believe that the whole world is against you! Wit my reply of *boring* was not directly personal towards you, but you take it personal. The whole thread is become to become boring, because nobody want to listen to eachother, so I think that I'm in my right to say, that it begins to be boring.

And by the way PAVLOV, if you call that rude, then you must know me, when I'm really rude! And don't take the role as most humble, as the most weakest of us, so that everyone becomes pity with you.  

But I'm so humble, that I accept your sincere apology

[Alixz]

Whoa!  Let's not get too personal.

[PAVLOV]

I do not take it personally. You are just impolite, and offensive. It is clear that you are rude.  I think we should all respect each others opinion on this forum. If we dont, there is no point is there ?
Please dont be rude in future, you turn people off.

If you find this Forum boring, go away and post on a forum that is more interesting, and where you can insult people.

The people on this forum are all very nice, and your attitude is uncalled for.
 
Subject closed.

[Teddy]

Indeed this topic is closed!
But a reminder for you: I never would leave this forum, only a thread!

[Kalafrana]

I'm happy to join Pavlov in the firing line!

Alexandra's period of political power was a disaster. Obviously her actions were not the sole cause of the Revolution, but were certainly one of a number of major factors (of course, Nicholas was partly to blame for leaving her in charge).

I also agree with Pavlov that Alexandra was by no means a perfect parent. Machine gun nests will no doubt spring up in front of me when I say that I am not a parent myself, but to my mind a good parent needs to have some objectivity about their children and to be able to step back from them, particularly once they are teenagers. What is best for an individual child is not necessarily what their parents want for them (just to take a fairly mundane example, one of my current students spent a period unhappily studying dentistry because that was what her parents, both dentists, wanted, despite her having no interest whatever). Alexandra had no objectivity at all. Oh yes, she loved her children, obsessively so, but she isolated them from ordinary life, she over-protected Alexei to an extreme degree, and fell under the spell of a charlatan, for that, to me, is what Rasputin was. Pavlov makes the very good point that Alexei was in good health from the time of Rasputin's death up to the accident in Tobolsk 16 months later. He also spent several months in total at the Stavka, and was in good health for most of that time, in fact, apart from the nosebleed at the Stavka, he enjoyed the best health of his life from 1915 up to March 1918 (and the Tobolsk accident looks largely self-inflicted). Partly, of course, that was because he was getting older and less likely to have minor knocks, but he was still managing without Rasputin. I would be most interested to see how Alexandra's sister Irene dealt with having not one but two haemophiliac sons - I suspect very differently.

[Janet Ashton]

I never suggested that anyone should take my opinion or anyone else's as solid truth, I was only mentioning that the same questions have been asked of me and answered by me several times.  i.e. why I think it was "child abuse" etc.  I have explained that many times.

Ah - I see now that your previous post was a reply to Terrance; I had thought it was directed at the whole board....

Her obsession with mystics including Rasputin put a tarnish on the Imperial Family.

This may be true; but she was only building on a tarnish amply applied to the imperial family's public image by Khodynka; by Aleksandr Bezobrazov; by Petr Badmaev; by Sergei Aleksandrovich; Alexander II's sex life, and any one of a number of other factors which all underscore the vital point: it doesn't matter who the imperial family associates with as long as those associates are not perceived as wielding unwarranted power. And had Nicholas not set himself on a collision course with his own government, it wouldn't have mattered one whit who he received at home.

I have no strong views on whether Alexandra's lack of public appearances was a hindrance or not at this point, and whether this was excusable in a woman who spent much of the first half of her reign pregnant. Maria Feodorovna may have consorted with the aristocracy but she was not visible to the country at large, and her children were much less visible than Alexandra's were. Many on this board still see her as a good Empress. The vast majority of the Russian people made no distinction between one Empress and another; she was no better loved by the people who followed Nicholas in power.

[Janet Ashton]

(of course, Nicholas was partly to blame for leaving her in charge).

Nicholas was entirely to blame. How could a man who insisted dogmatically on the style of "autocrat" be considered "partly" to blame for what happened on his watch?

I actually agree with Teddy to a degree; I don't think that anyone is really all that interested in listening to each other here. I did have a look at the earlier parts of the thread, and it seemed that back in 2005 there were genuine exchanges going on, and exploration of different ideas. Now, it just seems that people just make assertions of their beliefs and then prepare for martyrdom. It doesn't encourage anyone to be forthcoming. I considered replying to a few more points here, but I am sure it would lead to my being categorized as being on some "side", so I am disinclined to.