christening of Alexei 1904

[Sergio]

The christening was a stunning display of the wealth and power of the Romanovs.
On August 23, 1904 the heir was baptised. Marie Pavlovna noted:
"We accompanied my uncle and aunt to Peterhof to attend the little Tsarevich's baptism. A gilded coach followed by a cavalary troop bore the newly born son to the church. He was accompanied by his nurse and the Mistress of Robes.
Since dawn regiments had been drawn up along the route the cortege would take, with it's numerous gala carriages drawn by horses with plumes.
At eleven o' clock in the morning the Imperial family and the court were ready, the men in their full-dress uniforms, the ladies adorned with jewels in gowns of gold and silver cloth with long trains.
The Emperor, the Grand Dukes and Duchesses, the ambassadors, and the high dignitaries formed in procession; they reached the palace church by crossing halls filled with guests. The little Tsarevich was carried at the head of the procession on a cushion of silver cloth by the Mistress of Robes.
The church glistened with light. At the entrance numerous members of the clergy, presided over by the Archbishop of St. Petersburg, greeted the Emperor.
The religious service ended, the child was brought back to the house with the same ceremonial. Felicitations and a banquet brought the day to an end.
In honor of the Army, then fighting on the distant plains of Manchuria, all the combatants were inscribed as godfathers to the young prince."
Then, to the horror of his parents, he started bleeding from the navel. But there would not be another occurance for years.


From: http://www.geocities.com/grandanor1/alexei1.html

[Sarai_Porretta]

You are not supposed to take photos inside an Orthodox Church without the blessing of the Priest. These days cameras and flashbulbs don't make much if any noise, but in the old days, the flash made an explosion - very distracting in a religious ceremony (as are camera flashes going off these days but at least they aren't noisy.) Maybe it was a Romanov tradition for the parents not to be present. Or it could be that they were baptised within 40 days of birth, in which case, the mother can not go inside the Church. Anyway, during Baptism, it is the Godparents who hold the baby - before the actual immersion in water the Godfather, after the immersion the Godmother. The Godparents have a great spiritual responsibility, and the spiritual relationship extends through (I think) about seven generations, meaning that getting married to someone to whom you are spiritually related to is as big a "no -no" as marrying a close relative.

Thank you for this explanation. It certainly makes sense that photography in those days would cause a great distraction, especially because of the flash explosion, and this could not be allowed in such a solemn ceremony.

Alexei's christening was definitely within 40 days of his birth, which in accordance to your statement, explains why the mother was not allowed inside the church. I'm curious - is there a reason behind this tradition? Anyway, this would explain why Alexandra was not allowed inside, but if the father is allowed, then perhaps Nicholas simply wished to stay with his wife or was following family tradition.

[Georgiy]

Hi Sarai,
The tradition still holds that the mother doesn't enter Church until 40 days after giving birth, then she is "Churched". Part of it is I guess that she still might have bleeding for a while after the birth, and also it gives her time to rest, recover from giving birth, and to be with her newborn. it is a tradition that goes right back to the beginnings of the Church, and also back to Jewish times. (For example the Virgin Mary taking Christ to the temple where he was met by Simon who said "Let now Thy servant depart O Lord....")

[anna]

Alexei's christening was definitely within 40 days of his birth, which in accordance to your statement, explains why the mother was not allowed inside the church. I'm curious - is there a reason behind this tradition? Anyway, this would explain why Alexandra was not allowed inside, but if the father is allowed, then perhaps Nicholas simply wished to stay with his wife or was following family tradition.

I know the Arabic-culture has this same tradition of 40 days after a woman has given birth to a child. She's unclean - the same when having her period- man and wife are supposed not to sleep together until after 40 days her body is recovered. During those days she wears the original caftan without a strap around her waist, because the body musn't be tighten up. When the 40 days are over, usualy family members give a little party to celebrate everything went well. The mother than wears a new white (pure) caftan with a broad strap.This is according to regular tradition in Morocco.

Perhaps this could be also a reason why the mother isn't allowed to attend a church service.-this case a christening-in a non muslim culture.

Anna

[anna]

Georgiy,

See how far back traditions can go in different cultures and come to the same point. I wish people nowadays were more aware of that and see the similarities between different religions and cultures. Maybe than we could tolerate each other more.

Anna

[Georgiy]

Anna,
That is an excellent point. I think esp. in the west after WW1 there has been such a cultural upheaval, that many don't know their own cultures' traditions, and/or don't care.

[Sarai_Porretta]

I know the Arabic-culture has this same tradition of 40 days after a woman has given birth to a child. She's unclean - the same when having her period- man and wife are supposed not to sleep together until after 40 days her body is recovered.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking was a probable reason - that the woman was considered "unclean" during that time.

[Robert_Hall]

Speaking of the Dowager Empress, isn't today her birthday ? [1847]

[Sarai_Porretta]

Speaking of the Dowager Empress, isn't today her birthday ? [1847]

Yes, it is!

[Lisa]

Extracts from the French newspaper L'Illustration, 3 sept. 1904, n° 3210, p. 157:


p. 158-59:


p. 160:

[Dennis]

Speaking of christenings, a beautiful little baby girl was baptized in our church yesterday morning and given the name Alexandra Anastasia.

I made a point of asking the mother if there was any historical significance to her name and she said no, but that several people had pointed out to her that these names were those of the last Tsarina of Russia and her youngest daughter.

It was very interesting to hear those names pronounced several times during the (Lutheran)baptismal ceremony.

[olga]

It was very interesting to hear those names pronounced several times during the (Lutheran)baptismal ceremony.

Ana-STAY-zha?   Grrrrr..........

[Dennis]

Well,  the Pastor probably didn't pronounce the name as it would be correctly pronounced in Russia, but he pronounced it more like Ana -staa- sia, more like "ah" without the long a as is "stay."  What is the actual correct pronounciation?  I scanned the thread on pronounciation, but her name isn't there.

[Dashkova]

Well,  the Pastor probably didn't pronounce the name as it would be correctly pronounced in Russia, but he pronounced it more like Ana -staa- sia, more like "ah" without the long a as is "stay."  What is the actual correct pronounciation?  I scanned the thread on pronounciation, but her name isn't there.

Ahna-stah-SEE-ya is the traditional Russian pronunciation.

[Dennis]

Thanks for your help!