Wow, what a discussion! Sorry I missed out on so much.
All this reminds me of my ongoing debate with my husband over the nature vs. nurture question. He's a conservative, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps type whereas I am more liberal and tend to look for the reasons behind people's less than exemplary behavior - I suppose in part because I do not want to be judged harshly myself!
But honestly, I think both nature and nurture play a role in the formation of anyone's personality. In fact, isn't this what most neuroscientists now believe? For example, if someone has a genetic predisposition toward depression, bad or abusive parenting is going to bring it out.
As far as historical personages other than Nicholas go:
Look at the great monarchs who had horrific childhood experiences:
Elizabeth I of England, whose mother was beheaded by her father, spent her childhood cycling in and out of grace in a court where the consequences could be deadly. In fact, she came within a tentative signature of being murdered by her half sister. She laid the economic foundations for England's future empire and oversaw England's rise to global naval domination.
Actually Elizabeth Tudor is not a good example of someone triumphing over a bad childhood. She had a murderous father, true, but she was protected from his negative influence (indeed, she rarely saw him) by a host of loving caregivers during her most formative years: among others, Lady Bryan and later, Katherine Ashley. She remained utterly devoted to these women throughout her life and continued to protect "dear Kat" even when it went against her best interests to do so. Just one person can make the difference in a child's life - Elizabeth had several.
Frederick the Great was bullied and abused by his father. He was even forced to watch the beheading of his best childhood friend (and likely lover) by his father. He went on to become a great general who established the hegemony of Prussia in central Europe and the core of what became modern Germany.
Louis XIV had a manipulative mother who ignored her son's interests to connive with her lover Cardinal Richelieu to the point that the nobility revolted, almost taking Louis captive. His reign was the apogee of absolutism in modern Europe.
Peter the Great witnessed the wholesale murder of his mother's extended family during childhood and barely escaped with his life. He was brought up in part by a half sister who, had she seen the necessity in time, would have probably eliminated him to clear her own way to the throne. He went on to turn Russia into a land and sea power of the first order.
About Frederick the Great and Louis XIV I know little enough. But Peter the Great turned into a murderous tyrant, whatever you think of his many accomplishments. Remember his personal participation in the very bloody execution of the Streltsy? St. Petersburg, which he built on the bones of forced peasant labor? The yurodivye, lunatics, and other homeless people he exiled to Siberia and certain death because he couldn't abide their presence in his cities? His drunken orgies with Menshikov and his other buddies? Sure, Peter was functional, and he was a great success as tyrants go, but he was not a person you would wish to emulate in your own life, by any stretch of the imagination.
Catherine the Great was hauled from home as a teenager and parachuted into a strange world of violent politics where she was wed to a murderous sadist. She managed to become the dominant monarch of her age.
Catherine the Great had a very normal childhood with a loving father and rather domineering mother. She adapted to her situation in Russia because she had the brains - and the acquired skills - to adapt.
But what about Ivan the Terrible? Someone should mention him. He had a childhood awful beyond imagining, including the probable murder of his mother and the definite murder of other near relatives. He was by every account an abused child, both exploited and neglected by the boyars around him. He emerged from the experience psychotic, possibly even what we would call today a serial killer. Nature or nurture? Most probably a combination of both.
If monarchs can get off the hook for destroying their countries by arguing an unpleasant childhood, it's a true blessing that the institution is breathing its last in our times. Monarchs have always set themselves above and apart from the rest of humanity. In so doing, they lose the defense of humanness for their mistakes.
Well, I agree with the whole decline of monarchy concept. But I would disagree with the "defense of humanness for their mistakes." It's not so much a defense but a need to know why. Most of us would like to understand the nature of human evil, in as much as we wish to prevent its reoccurrence. As Alan Bullock wrote, if there is even the remotest chance that being beaten as children caused both Hitler and Stalin to become genocidal tyrants, isn't it in our best interests to prevent child abuse to the extent that it is possible? I really don't see how examining the personal lives of rulers detracts or even exists apart from a larger desire to understand the way the world works... But to each his own, I suppose. (My husband is defending your position even as I type this, the rotter!) And BTW, I still find it impossible to blame Nicholas II entirely for the Russian revolution, which could very well have happened even if another man had been standing in his shoes, indeed, even if Peter the Great had stood in them.
