Author Topic: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man  (Read 118924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2006, 10:25:50 AM »
Nicholas was trained in the military. But he was never given goverment training. Pretty much all Romanov Grand Dukes did have training in the military or navy. I don't think Nicholas ever got goverment training for the reasons I mentioned. Alexander III was fairly young, he must have assumed that he had longer, so that when Nicholas was older, he would give him the goverment training he needed.

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2006, 11:20:29 AM »
Nicholas was trained in the military. But he was never given goverment training. Pretty much all Romanov Grand Dukes did have training in the military or navy. I don't think Nicholas ever got goverment training for the reasons I mentioned. Alexander III was fairly young, he must have assumed that he had longer, so that when Nicholas was older, he would give him the goverment training he needed.

I agree.  Throughout most of his diaries during his young adulthood before his engagement, Nicholas lived the life typical to anybody born into wealth and privilege; without any real direction, just sort of having fun and enjoying life and leisure.  He certainly never held any ambition to be Tsar as he was quoted as saying to Sandro moments after his father's death.

Perhaps if he had really shown initiative Alexander III would have taken him seriously.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2006, 11:36:50 AM »
I agree that, had he shown more initiative that things might have been different. Alexander III obviously felt he had time, Nicholas may have thought so as well. They both turned out wrong, but even with any lack of shown initiave, Alexander III ought to have realized that time, whether slow or fast, would bring Nicholas to the throne, and that he had to know his duties.

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #93 on: October 19, 2006, 12:48:43 PM »
Most definitely.  But I suppose that goes back to the whole over-protective mother overbearing father bit and keep their children "artificially young" as with the Grand Duchesses.

Maria Feodorovna and her sister both exhibited this with their children.  And I believe that Edvard Razdzinsky says in his book The Last Tsar that BOTH Nicky AND Michael responded the same as most sons of dominating fathers do.  They simply went along with everything they were told and were sort of "held back" by their strong willed parent and never really allowed to think for themselves. 

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #94 on: October 19, 2006, 01:14:24 PM »
I think that is true. Both Alexandra and her sister Dowager Empress Marie F. were overbearing mothers, in various ways, and over protective of their children. Both them loved their children, but may not have realized sometimes you have let your children have some freedom, especially when they are royalty, and they have important roles to play. I am not sure that Alexander III was an overprotective father though.. and as for the Grand Duchesses, with their parents Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra it was a whole new set of dynamics, that may not take into account what is discussed here.

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #95 on: October 19, 2006, 01:30:24 PM »
True enough.  In saying Alexander III as overbearing, I suppose I should have said domineering. As you pointed out, not out of overprotection but more in line with enforcing his will withing the family and upon young Nicky -  as he did in the running the country.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #96 on: October 19, 2006, 04:12:36 PM »
Well, he was Tsar, so I am sure he was used to enforcing his will. That isn't surprising at all. I think he could seem very domineering; he looked domineering. In private, he was sometimes so; he was also quite down to earth and liked to indulge in silly practical jokes at times. It seems his character was mixed.

Pippilin

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #97 on: October 19, 2006, 05:03:17 PM »
I have read-- though in only one source-- that Alexander III suffered from the "secret" family disease, alcoholism.  If true, this could explain his relatively early death and may have meant that he was not able to offer much emotional support to his family. Nicky may never have received much of an education in being a ruler if Alexander III were an absentee father.  If he were an absentee husband as well, Marie Fedorovna may have found her relationships with her children to be the only reliable
ones she had.  Hence her difficulty in "turning" Nicholas over to Alix after their marriage. 

Offline Ortino

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Ortino
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #98 on: October 20, 2006, 04:26:18 PM »
I have read-- though in only one source-- that Alexander III suffered from the "secret" family disease, alcoholism.  If true, this could explain his relatively early death and may have meant that he was not able to offer much emotional support to his family. Nicky may never have received much of an education in being a ruler if Alexander III were an absentee father.  If he were an absentee husband as well, Marie Fedorovna may have found her relationships with her children to be the only reliable
ones she had.  Hence her difficulty in "turning" Nicholas over to Alix after their marriage. 

Alexander III died of nephritis, or inflammation of the kidney. The two most common causes are infection or auto-immune process. Where exactly did you read about alcoholism? 

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #99 on: October 21, 2006, 12:41:33 AM »
I have read-- though in only one source-- that Alexander III suffered from the "secret" family disease, alcoholism.  If true, this could explain his relatively early death and may have meant that he was not able to offer much emotional support to his family.

Alexander III died of nephritis, or inflammation of the kidney. The two most common causes are infection or auto-immune process. Where exactly did you read about alcoholism?

Hello Pippilin,

I would like to assure you that Alexander III was NOT an alcoholic. This unfortunate myth was initiated in the West and continues to be perpetuated by some Western historians who regretably failed to search in the Russian archives to locate Alexander III's Autopsy Report.

For a better understanding as to what Alexander III suffered from and the cause of his death please read the following recently published article in "European Royal History J. (April, 2006), which is also made available for your convenience here:


http://www.geocities.com/mushkah//AlexanderIIIDeath.html

Alexander III was not an "absentee father" as you claim. He was a devoted family man. Perhaps you should consult Vorres book on Grand Duchess Olga, who stated that her father was everything to her. That devotion to family translated to Nikolai II as well. When Alexander III died, Nikolai was an adult. 


Regards,

Margraita



Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Svetabel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4883
    • View Profile
    • http://svetabella.livejournal.com/
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #100 on: October 21, 2006, 01:37:02 PM »
I have read-- though in only one source-- that Alexander III suffered from the "secret" family disease, alcoholism.  If true, this could explain his relatively early death and may have meant that he was not able to offer much emotional support to his family.

Alexander III died of nephritis, or inflammation of the kidney. The two most common causes are infection or auto-immune process. Where exactly did you read about alcoholism?

Hello Pippilin,

I would like to assure you that Alexander III was NOT an alcoholic. This unfortunate myth was initiated in the West and continues to be perpetuated by some Western historians who regretably failed to search in the Russian archives to locate Alexander III's Autopsy Report.


This myth was one of the favourites tales of the Soviet historians and some Soviet writers. It was very convienient to treat all the Tzars like alhoholics,tyrants and maniacs who never done anything good only grinded the poor. >:(

Dominic_Albanese

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #101 on: October 21, 2006, 01:51:24 PM »
I think this is yet another reason why a good biography on Alexander III is needed.   Margraita's excellent article on the death of Alexander III has started to push back on the long held rumor that Alexander was a raging drunk - and I can't help but wonder what other well known “facts” about Alexander III are equally incorrect.

Speaking specifically to this thread - I think that it is fair to say that Nicholas and Alexander had a highly complex relationship.  Alexander was vocal about the fact that his son was a disappointment to him - in his childish outlook on life, his lack of experience with women, his ultimate choice of a bride, his lack of interest in governmental matters, his inability to deal effectively with ministers and his peers in the family, etc.  Alexander was a hard man.  He needed to be.  He came to the throne after watching his father bleed to death from a terrorist bomb.  Remember he (Alexander III) was not thought that highly of by his own parents who preferred his older brother Nicholas and he was pressured throughout his life by his younger brother Vladimir who cursed the accident of birth that kept him from the throne.

Alexander did make time for his kids.  He was often referred to as a kid himself – the family holidays in Denmark are loaded with stories of him (Alexander) playing tricks on the children of the extended family as well as them playing tricks on him.

Having said that, I believe Nicholas worshipped his father - especially those characteristics that made him a strong and powerful ruler.  Remember also that Nicholas had a very immature outlook on life.  Nicholas didn’t really grow up until his father died and than he had to grow up so quickly that it was too late for him to develop his personality into a strong, yet forward looking ruler.

I believe that Alexander was better connected to his children that Empress Marie - Marie, ever the society darling, left the details of raising her children to others - don't read this as a criticism - that was what was generally (but not always) done at that time.  On a family level, I believe that while he was a better parent that Marie, the times, the pressures of the throne, and Alexander’s own upbringing made him a hard and difficult parent.

In summary, the million dollar question will always be, had Alexander III not gotten sick and died so quickly would he, over time, have better prepared Nicholas for the throne – something that required more experience in government affairs and more support to help him (Nicholas II) grow up into a confident, thoughtful and secure man?  All attributes necessary to run a country as large and complex as Russia.

dca

Mazukov

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #102 on: October 21, 2006, 09:00:01 PM »
I would like to add a footnote to this, and It’s just a thought. For us who have children, we will at times judge out children differently. We can also be vocal about there faults, as was Alexander in his vocal displeasure of Nicholas as a man, and his ability to deal with Government or current advents (much like his comment have you ever tried to have a conversation with him)
With that said. It no way means that they didn’t get along or that Alexander was a bad parent. he was in fact speaking the truth, about the faults and weaknesses of his son.

Looking back on history it would not have mattered who was sitting on the throne during the first world war. Imperial Russia was going change. Perhaps it may have survived in some form. But the changes that did take place were going to happen no matter who was tsar

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #103 on: October 21, 2006, 09:06:21 PM »
I have read-- though in only one source-- that Alexander III suffered from the "secret" family disease, alcoholism.  If true, this could explain his relatively early death and may have meant that he was not able to offer much emotional support to his family.

Alexander III died of nephritis, or inflammation of the kidney. The two most common causes are infection or auto-immune process. Where exactly did you read about alcoholism?

Hello Pippilin,

I would like to assure you that Alexander III was NOT an alcoholic. This unfortunate myth was initiated in the West and continues to be perpetuated by some Western historians who regretably failed to search in the Russian archives to locate Alexander III's Autopsy Report.


This myth was one of the favourites tales of the Soviet historians and some Soviet writers. It was very convienient to treat all the Tzars like alhoholics,tyrants and maniacs who never done anything good only grinded the poor. >:(

My parents were taught the same by their soviet pedagogues in their schools. Imperial history was washed over while intense study was frowned upon. Such a platform permitted the soviet masters not to negate the myths. 

But then what could the soviet schools offer except to extol the virtues of their anointed comrade leaders who actually were paranoid tyrants and dictatorial.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #104 on: October 21, 2006, 09:15:48 PM »
Looking back on history it would not have mattered who was sitting on the throne during the first world war. Imperial Russia was going change. Perhaps it may have survived in some form. But the changes that did take place were going to happen no matter who was tsar


Respectfully I would tender that it DID matter that Nikolai II was the sovereign at that time. Imperial Russian could have converted into a consitutional monarchy, but there were too many enemies surrounding Nikolai who ensured that the monarchy was no longer tenable.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/