Author Topic: Tatiana & Cleopatra  (Read 44830 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2004, 08:26:50 PM »
I think the girls were extremely attractive, especially since they wore no makeup and were photographed with primative cameras and lighting conditions.  Have you ever seen todays models and movie stars minus all of the makeup and airbrushing that is used in magazines?  Some of them are just plain looking without the extra help.

Michelle

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2004, 08:37:39 PM »
Amen to that, mek! :D  It's amazing how beautiful they really must've appeared to their contemporaries considering they meet OUR beauty standards, plus the fact that the majority of women in the olden days--no matter if royal or peasant--were dogs.  OTMA were indeed the most beautiful young women in most probably the history of the world! :o  I wonder why Robert and Martyn don't think they are merely "pretty enough?"  ;)

Alexandra

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2004, 08:53:23 PM »
Since the topic has arisen...if you look at numismatic examples of Cleopatra, she was not what one would term classically beautiful; her profile exhibits a very prominent, hooked nose, and the whole rather resembles the Egyptian sacred vulture!
Physically, I have long thought GD Tatiana N. resembles her Uncle Ernie to a great degree - the similarities are quite striking in some photos, such as those of her bald from measles.
On the matter of their sexuality, I should rather doubt that such sequestered girls would have been comfortable about expressing it to any extent. This does not mean that they would not have experienced attractions [GD Maria N seems to have fancied Dmitri Pavlovich, GD Olga to one of the regimental officers of her father's entourage]. It takes calculation and experience to seduce anyone, commodities which these rather naive young women do not appear to have possessed.

Best,

Katherine Alexandra M. Hines

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2004, 10:19:29 PM »
Quite true !
The British Museum put on an exhibit, a few years ago, on Cleopatra in which all the stories of her sultry seductiveness were made quite moot.
Frankly, she was a product of Greek [Ptolemy] incest and Nubian breeding. The sexy part must have come from the Nubians.
She was no Liz Taylor, at least in our modern eyes. [I think it would have been a stretch in anyone's eyes, honestly]. But, she must have talents elsewhere.

And, the image of virginal Russian Grand Duchesses rolling out of rugs, belly dancing to balalika strings and pouring vodka in their navels just does not image well at all !
Cheers,
Robert

Val289

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2004, 10:25:45 PM »
I have to agree with the ladies here - OTMA were very beautiful by today's standards and yesterday's as well.  And I don't mean just in their official (and probably airbrushed) photos.   In every photo I've seen of them, they are all beautiful in their own way.   I also believe that beauty can radiate from the inside out.  Now certainly the girls weren't angels all the time, but they really had a lot of great traits that shone through.  I personally believe, there may have been some flirtations going on between some of the girls and the guards, but probably not much else past that.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Val289 »

olga

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2004, 01:45:49 AM »
Quote
plus the fact that the majority of women in the olden days--no matter if royal or peasant--were dogs.


That's a bit harsh, isn't it?

Quote
OTMA were indeed the most beautiful young women in most probably the history of the world!


Hmmmmm.

Offline Martyn

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7022
  • Martyn's Chips
    • View Profile
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2004, 03:47:50 AM »
Michelle, it really is a bit of a stretch to say that 'the majority of women in the olden days - no matter if royal or peasant - were dogs'.
We have had lots of discussions on this site already about the relative beauty merits of various royal princesses and, quite naturally, people have different opinions about who comes out where - much the same way that we all are attracted to people differently.
I am not trying to take away anything from OTMA and agree that they were attractive; I just don't think that they were beautiful and that's my personal opinion.
'For a galant spirit there can never be defeat'....Wallis Windsor

'The important things is not what they think of me, but what I think of them.'......QV

olga

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2004, 07:45:40 AM »
I agree with Martyn.  I don't think I've ever seen women in past times being referred to as 'dogs'. Please explain, Michelle.

Olga Nikolaevna is the only one I'd consider 'beautiful'.

Offline Martyn

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7022
  • Martyn's Chips
    • View Profile
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2004, 07:58:17 AM »
Thanks Olga.  I thought that I was going to be excommunicated for a moment!  Still think that the 'dogs' comment was a bit much......
'For a galant spirit there can never be defeat'....Wallis Windsor

'The important things is not what they think of me, but what I think of them.'......QV

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2004, 09:11:41 AM »
Quote
 It's amazing how beautiful they really must've appeared to their contemporaries considering they meet OUR beauty standards, plus the fact that the majority of women in the olden days--no matter if royal or peasant--were dogs.  Robert ;)



Michelle
--Please consider rephrasing this rather unkind and cutting remark... It seems a very immature comment, unworthy of this site.
Rskkiya

  I strongly doubt that anyone tried to seduce the guards--- if anything did happen -  I should guess it would have been much more along the lines of lonely and bored children looking for companionship and company.
  The only comparison that I can perceive between T. and Cleopatera would have been  in the mythsattached to their appearance. I doubt that we can ever really know what Cleo looked like but we can tell that -pretty or plain - she was able to create great charisma!
Rskkiya

Michelle

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2004, 10:46:51 AM »
Rskkiya, Olga, and Martyn,

I said the MAJORITY of women back then were dogs--meaning ugly, unattractive, sourfaced, mannish looking, what have you.  Yes, there were some exceptions (obviously--i.e. OTMA, Alix, MF, Xenia A., Irina, Ella, although I don't consider the latter a great beauty--and this is not to say that there weren't others).  But many many women I've seen in portraits/pictures etc from back then IN MY OPINION were downright ugly.  This forum is open to opinions the last time I checked--although many times in the past it has actually been to the contrary.  And, no, rskkiya, I will not retract my "dogs" statement just because you don't like it--infact, you don't like anything anyone says that could undermine your own thoughts.  Do you think I care if you consider my sayings immature?  Even though I consider you a sourpuss I am quite sure you don't give a d***n.    

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2004, 10:57:08 AM »
    I am still of the oppinion that there was no seduction involved with any of the daughters and any of the guards-- in fact the more that I consider the very notion the more vulgar and questionable the topic becomes.

   Was Tatianna in any way like Cleopatera? Both were women and both were considered very charming...But I think that  that is as far as it goes.

Rskkiya

Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2004, 11:18:31 AM »
It's amazing--to put it kindly--how focused we can still be re: matters of "who is prettier," or who is [God help us] "a dog," etc.

Attractiveness is very often a subjective matter, and while there's no denying that some of the "aura" around the Imperial Family has to do with the fact that, yes, they were an appealing-looking family . . . well, My God, there is so much more to it, and should be.

No doubt some of the girls were attracted to the guards, and no doubt some of the guards were attracted to the girls. It would be strange if that were not so. But Tatiana was not a Cleopatra by any means--I can imagine the very thought would make Tatiana herself laugh!--though we have read, in FOTR, that she was often asked, by her parents, to serve as an intermediary during their imprisonment. That would be because she was trustworthy, business-like, and--yes--appealing. I do not doubt that her parents believed that her natural dignity would appeal to the better instincts of those in charge. But Tatiana rolled up in a carpet? Or on the prowl for whom she might next seduce? Pul-leeeeze!

As for this continued discussion re: who is and isn't pretty, and blah blah blah . . . well, once it has been established that the girls were indeed winsome, that certain women were definitely soigne, etc. . . . who bloody hell cares?! In an era when even the venerable Miss America Pageant is having to go look for a network, perhaps we should consider moving on when it comes to squabbling about who is the prettiest, who is isn't, and other similar matters involving style vs. substance.

The exception to this, of course, would be the threads re: the fashions, jewelry, makeup, etc. of the period. We have a number of people on this website who have careers based on such matters, and understandably have an interest in the cut of a dress, the look of a tiarra, and so forth. Their contributions are both informed and informative, and have not, to my knowledge, stooped to adolescent name-calling.

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2004, 11:19:09 AM »
I think Michelle, as is evidenced on many other threads, is given to verbal extremes. It's doubtful it's intentional.

Just in this thread:

Women in olden days were mostly "dogs."

and

OTMA were probably the most beautiful girls in the history of the world.

Someone made a comment on how women today have advantages of superior cosmetics, hair design, cosmetic surgery, good lighting, and the standby of airbrush.  I think this is a very important point to take note of.

Even in the example of OTMA, compare the official (read: touched up) portraits and then one, such as the one on the cover of James Lovell's picture book (can't remember the name).  It's hard to believe the untouched photos are the same young women in the portraits.  These girls were more fortunate than most because they had the most advanced photographic techniques (and Max Factor) available to them.  *Most* other women and girls had neither when their photos were taken, and let's face it, bad lighting can make *all* the difference.  If you were to meet any of these women face to face (OTMA or anyone else) you would see that most were actually attractive and many of them what is defined as "pretty."

In most of the snapshot-type photos I find OTMA to be actually rather ordinary (not ugly, though my 21st century daughter looks at the same photos and says: "manly women, MANLY!"), but in the fancier portraits yes, they are (like the rest of us in the same situation!) absolutely beautiful!

And anyway, some people simply photograph better and it takes a special photographer/artist to be able to capture both the external and internal beauty of any individual.

Offline lilavanderhorn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Tatiyana & Cleopatra
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2004, 12:21:39 PM »
I actually think the girls were all quite attractive, Marie especially.  In my opinion they looked great in their regular family pictures as well as their public ones.  I also think women back then were more beautiful, mostly because I am a period enthusiast, and a vintage clothing collector.  The fashion back then emphasized femininity and daintyness.  That said, I often dress like OTMA and wear my hair like them.  To say that women back then look like "dogs" really strikes me as insulting.  You are talking about people's great grandmothers here.  As I said, I do dress up in period clothing, and I prefer this look a lot more than I do the modern one, however, I can see beauty in modern people as well as those that lived a hundred years ago.  Most of the photographs we see of people in the earlier centuries are very serious and unsmiling.  If you took modern women and dressed them in the same clothing, with little or no makeup, and ask them to sit still for a few minutes, I suppose they would not look their best either.   I can understand not liking the looks or fashions of the past, but I find it hard to understand why someone would generalise everyone like that as being unattractive.



Anyway, I don't think Tatiana would be capable of using her seductive charms on the guards, all the girls probably knew how to flatter, flirt and be friendly to the young men, but I doubt it went much further than this.