Was Alix of Hesse disliked by British royals?

[Romanov_fan]

I thought the 1896 visit was when she got precedence, but it seems not. I'm not sure if they ever visited Queen Victoria again, I will have to check. I know I have read either in a biography of Alexandra, or a book about the IF that Queen Victoria did feel she was haughty in 1896. Maybe that book got it wrong. Perhaps that was in Carolly Erickson's biography, which is known to be inaccurate in some regards.

[wildone]

I thought the 1896 visit was when she got precedence, but it seems not. I'm not sure if they ever visited Queen Victoria again, I will have to check. I know I have read either in a biography of Alexandra, or a book about the IF that Queen Victoria did feel she was haughty in 1896. Maybe that book got it wrong. Perhaps that was in Carolly Erickson's biography, which is known to be inaccurate in some regards.

David Duff in Hessian Tapestry recites it, too -- "It was soon noted that the new 'Alicky' and 'Nicky,' the Emperor and Empress of All the Russias, were very different to the young lovers who had frolicked at Windsor and Osborne but two years before.  'Alicky' was a haughty woman dressed in white serge.  She no longer smiled.  'Nicky vacillated and was impossible to pin down.  In fact he was not enjoying Balmoral at all." (249)

However, he does not mention who had this impression of Alix and Nicholas.  It might not have been Queen Victoria.  Yet it had to be someone in her circle of family or retinue, or no one would have known how Nicholas felt about Balmoral.

[LisaDavidson]

I don't think this was true - it's too broad and sweeping of a statement. There were dozens of British royals in the 20 some years that Alexandra was Empress of Russia. I'm sure some of them did dislike her but am equally certain many of them did - or did not even know her!

We do know George and Mary were critical of her because of things said in the press - many of which were untrue. I don't know if this made them reluctant to help her and the Emperor and their children escape Russia or not. I didn't read of them saying anything unpleasant regarding her after her murder.

Undoubtedly Queen Alexandra was aware of the bad blood between her sister Dagmar and Alexandra - and most likely took her sister's side as most of us would do.

[Yelena Aleksandrovna]

Was Alexandra the favorite of Queen Victoria's grandchildren or just she loved her as other of
her cousins?

[Romanov_fan]

I thought the 1896 visit was when she got precedence, but it seems not. I'm not sure if they ever visited Queen Victoria again, I will have to check. I know I have read either in a biography of Alexandra, or a book about the IF that Queen Victoria did feel she was haughty in 1896. Maybe that book got it wrong. Perhaps that was in Carolly Erickson's biography, which is known to be inaccurate in some regards.

David Duff in Hessian Tapestry recites it, too -- "It was soon noted that the new 'Alicky' and 'Nicky,' the Emperor and Empress of All the Russias, were very different to the young lovers who had frolicked at Windsor and Osborne but two years before.  'Alicky' was a haughty woman dressed in white serge.  She no longer smiled.  'Nicky vacillated and was impossible to pin down.  In fact he was not enjoying Balmoral at all." (249)

However, he does not mention who had this impression of Alix and Nicholas.  It might not have been Queen Victoria.  Yet it had to be someone in her circle of family or retinue, or no one would have known how Nicholas felt about Balmoral.

There were a lot of goverment ministers who didn't care for Balmoral as I recall, and I believe a lot of foreign royals shared that opinion. That's something to keep in mind.

[LisaDavidson]

Was Alexandra the favorite of Queen Victoria's grandchildren or just she loved her as other of
her cousins?

How could anyone know this? Queen Victoria certainly made a point of looking out for Alice's daughters after her death, but if QV had a favorite, she did not enlighten us on that particular topic.

[wildone]

I thought the 1896 visit was when she got precedence, but it seems not. I'm not sure if they ever visited Queen Victoria again, I will have to check. I know I have read either in a biography of Alexandra, or a book about the IF that Queen Victoria did feel she was haughty in 1896. Maybe that book got it wrong. Perhaps that was in Carolly Erickson's biography, which is known to be inaccurate in some regards.

David Duff in Hessian Tapestry recites it, too -- "It was soon noted that the new 'Alicky' and 'Nicky,' the Emperor and Empress of All the Russias, were very different to the young lovers who had frolicked at Windsor and Osborne but two years before.  'Alicky' was a haughty woman dressed in white serge.  She no longer smiled.  'Nicky vacillated and was impossible to pin down.  In fact he was not enjoying Balmoral at all." (249)

However, he does not mention who had this impression of Alix and Nicholas.  It might not have been Queen Victoria.  Yet it had to be someone in her circle of family or retinue, or no one would have known how Nicholas felt about Balmoral.

There were a lot of goverment ministers who didn't care for Balmoral as I recall, and I believe a lot of foreign royals shared that opinion. That's something to keep in mind.

Interesting to know.  Duff pinned the date down to 1896, so I assumed the people making these observations were part of Queen Victoria's circle or any group that would naturally be at Balmoral during that time.  Of course many people formed negative opinions of Alix during her time as Empress, but the quote in question -- and the one attributed to Queen Victoria -- involved her visit in 1896.

[Romanov_fan]

Balmoral was cold, physically uncomfortable, and it was hard to get there for ordinary visitors/ goverment ministers, it was very remote. It's true Nicholas II did not like it. If you go to google books ( or if you own a copy of this book) on p.456 of Christopher Hibbert's Queen Victoria: A Personal History, it mentions Nicholas II's opinion of Balmoral with regards to his visit in 1896. He compared it to Siberia, and had much the same opinion of it as others had, and he had a toothache at that time- Hibbert is quoting some document, but I don't have the book in front of me right now to see where Hibbert sources this section too- but I will check very soon. It might give an idea of the sources used by David Duff, for example. It doesn't say anything about Alexandra being haughty as far as I recall though I will check again. Also, for general background on goverment minister's/ other visitors opinions of Balmoral see the google books result for Helen Rappaport's Queen Victoria, a Biographical Companion (or if you own this book check it), on p. 55, it covers Balmoral. Lord Salisbury, a goverment minister, also compared Balmoral to Siberia, and the book says most of the British Royal family actively disliked going there, although they felt a connection to it, as well. But many goverment ministers/ visitors disliked it, so Nicholas wasn't alone. Queen Victoria loved fresh very cold air and left the windows open, and it was already cold.

[CountessKate]

David Duff in 'Hessian Tapestry' mentions Nicholas' long litany of complaint from a letter to his mother Maria Feodorovna of 13th September 1896, particularly focusing on his annoyance with his uncles (Queen Victoria's sons) making him go out shooting every day but if you read the letter itself the Tsar wrote: "The weather is awful, rain and wind every day and on top of it all no luck at all - I haven't killed a stag yet.  I see even less of Alix here than at home, where deputations and audiences with Ministers interfere enough...." but he also said that "Granny [Queen Victoria]....is marvellously kind and amiable to us, and so delighted to see our little daughter!....I'm glad Georgie [George Duke of York - afterwards George V] comes out to shoot too - we can at least talk over the good times we've just had in Denmark."  Duff's reading of the letter is designed to bolster his view of the Tsar's sulleness, weakness and petulance but this is not borne out by the letter itself where he is just fed up with what sounds like grim weather and poor sport, but feeling particularly warm towards Queen Victoria and his friend and cousin George.  On the 2nd October, the Tsar wrote "...I would like to tell you a little about the end of our stay in Balmoral.  The weather improved....[after] Uncle Bertie [Edward Prince of Wales] left...I had an easier time because I could at least do what I wanted to,  and was not obliged to go out shooting every day in the cold and rain.  We went to Mar Lodge and had lunch with all the family at Louise's....Grannie was kinder and more amiable than ever...."

Duff's sources for this reading of the Balmoral visit are the illustrated London News for 1896, two biographies of Edward VII, by Sir Philip Magnus and E F Benson - not first hand sources such as the Tsar's own letters or those of Queen Victoria.   Nicholas was not keen on Uncle Bertie during this visit but one can well understand why from his letters and equally, why Edward VII's biographers might have been annoyed that their subject was looked on as tiresome by the Tsar - views which Duff seems to have picked up and amplified.

For her part, Queen Victoria wrote to the Empress Frederick that "He [Nicholas] is looking rather thin and pale and careworn, but sweet Alicky is in greater beauty and very blooming" and she repeated her observations of their being "unspoilt" and "dear and simple as ever" in this and a subsequent letter.  Duff said Alexandra was "a haughty woman dressed in white serge" on this visit but there is no evidence from her family or Queen Victoria's household that this was how she was viewed.  I can't say I feel like trawling through the Magnus or Benson biographies but I would be surprised if they had managed to find anything of substance to back this up.

[CountessKate]

I finally dug out the court diary of Edith, Lady Lytton who was a Lady in Waiting of Queen Victoria at the time.  She also failed to find any haughtiness in Alexandra.  The first she saw of her was "a lovely slight lady in white serge with rather a mean little white bonnet....and they received us most cordially....The side of the Empress's face is unmistakably lovely but the full face is a little broad and German, but the charming expression makes up, so one is always in rapture with her-and a nice white feather boa was so becoming."  So far David Duff's "haughty woman dressed in white serge.....[who] no longer smiled" does not seem to bear any resemblence to the woman whom Queen Victoria, Lady Lytton and Marie Mallet met on the Balmoral visit.   She does say that in response to a speech by the Provost of Edinburgh and a presentation of a "splendid gold casket" the "Emperor very shyly whispered a few words of thanks, but he ought to learn to do this kind of thing better.  She smiles, but neither of them take trouble enough to bow to all assembled as our Queen did so well."  Here Lady Lytton is criticising their shyness and lack of royal pretension - not their grandness.  Again and again during the visit Lady Lytton makes remarks such as "The Empress talked to me a long time over dinner and was so nice.....the Empress sent for me when I arrived in the library and gave me a lovely diamond brooch with a pearl drop.........the Empress spoke to me so nicely about her baby, nurse and education......I saw the Empress give the Emperor such a loving look, I am sure she is devoted to him........the Empress....said, "and here we always ran as children," so she ran again joyously" and particularly interestingly, "The Queen influences the Emperor and Empress to be much on their majesterial dignity I think, which is a mistake but they will come out of it no doubt by degrees!"  So in Lady Lytton's view, the Emperor and Empress were pleasant, gracious (Alexandra smiled!) and not very polished royal performers, and 'majesterial dignity' was being counselled by Queen Victoria.

So David Duff's view of Alexandra at Balmoral in 1896 is not borne out by any of the people who were actually there and who wrote about it - Queen Victoria, Marie Mallet and Edith Lytton.  Queen Victoria thought both Nicholas and Alexandra were 'unspoilt', Marie Mallet thought Alexandra "angelic" though "cow-like" because she was so absorbed in her babies and family, and Lady Lytton thought her very gracious but not royal enough and that Queen Victoria was the one urging greater dignity on she and her husband.  Duff's "haughty woman dressed in white serge" seems pretty much an invention.  Apart from the white serge, of course. 

[wildone]

CountessKate, this is fascinating!  Thank you for sharing.  It really is interesting how this sort of "common wisdom" gets started.  It reminds me of Prince Albert Victor, where -- whatever he might have been in real life -- so much of what we know of him comes from the same quote, quoted in every source, about him having no curiosity, etc., when the source might not have been completely reliable.

[CountessKate]

I absolutely agree - Albert Victor is usually portrayed as dim and apathetic and probably gay, none of which seems to be borne out by fact (though I've never been convinced that he was the sharpest tool in the box - just that he was as quite as bright as his brother George).  I think writers such as Poliakoff and David Duff were very much seeing Alexandra in the light of her later reputation in Russia, rather than in from the viewpoint of her relatives who had known her from her childhood.  It is interesting that David Duff picked up the 'white serge' reference from Lady Lytton but did not credit her as a source and suppressed every other mention of Alexandra in that account of the 1896 visit - because it did not fit in with his preconceived ideas.  Poliakoff too was trying to create a view of history as perceived by a child, and to do this he had to make Alexandra sufficiently strange and out of step with the other members of the family, to provide an explanation for the viewers of how it all went wrong in Russia for her.  But of course it doesn't really fit with facts, which were that when Alexandra fell out with her family, it was because of her obstinacy and refusal to see that she should be getting rid of Rasputin, show herself more in society and to the wider Russia, or get a better grip on political reality - not that she was being haughty and domineering.

[PAVLOV]

I have been slated in this forum for expressing my views on Alexandra. If one reads everything here that is said about her, it is generally negative. many people glamourise her, because of her tragic end, and compare her to Marie Antoinette. But one gets out of life what you put in. ( Mostly) I dont think these two ladies knew anything about projecting the correct image, or doing what was right for their countries, and rather indulged themselves. I think Alexandra's attitude was that because she was the wife of an Autocrat, chosed by God, she could just lie back on her daybed and make no effort. How wrong she turned out to be. 
Queen Mary tolerated Alexandra for family reasons, but was quoted as saying that Alexandra was entirely responsible,single handedly, for the Russian revolution and therefore alll the horrors that followed. ( See James Pope-Hennessy's famous biography of Queen Mary). Furthermore, Queen Mary was quite vocal about her opinions as to the level of Alexandra's intelligence, and competence.
The British Royal family was very critical of the fact that Russia was an Autocracy, and outdated. Queen Mary was very often quoted as saying that she was living in "Modern times", and therefore one had to adapt. Alexandra, having removed herself and her family from the real world,lived in ignorance of what was really happening in her country, and virtually neglected her duties and function as Empress.

I think there are a few reasons for this. She was terrified of the revolutionaries, and withdrew to Tsarskoe to protect her family.
She realised that she was not sophisticated enough to compete with the glamorous and aristocracy of Russia. ( and she was not).
 
The Russian  system should have changed to a democracy in 1905, which was the perfect moment in history I think, to do so. Had she not constantly, and stupidly clung to the outmoded idea that her husband hang on to being an Autocrat, in order to pass it on to their heir, things may have ended differently. Yes there were many other contributing factors as well, but many of these were aggravated by the archaic ideas of both nicholas and Alexandra.

I dont dislike Alexandra, she was a good mother, and nobody deserves to end your life like she did.

I tend to agree with Queen Mary though, and I dont think she was alone in her opinions of Alexandra either. Queen Mary's commitment to her Royal duties, are today reflected in Queen Elizabeth ll, and her mother, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

One has the greatest respect for them.     

 

[LisaDavidson]

I have been slated in this forum for expressing my views on Alexandra. If one reads everything here that is said about her, it is generally negative. many people glamourise her, because of her tragic end, and compare her to Marie Antoinette. But one gets out of life what you put in. ( Mostly) I dont think these two ladies knew anything about projecting the correct image, or doing what was right for their countries, and rather indulged themselves. I think Alexandra's attitude was that because she was the wife of an Autocrat, chosed by God, she could just lie back on her daybed and make no effort. How wrong she turned out to be.  
Queen Mary tolerated Alexandra for family reasons, but was quoted as saying that Alexandra was entirely responsible,single handedly, for the Russian revolution and therefore alll the horrors that followed. ( See James Pope-Hennessy's famous biography of Queen Mary). Furthermore, Queen Mary was quite vocal about her opinions as to the level of Alexandra's intelligence, and competence.
The British Royal family was very critical of the fact that Russia was an Autocracy, and outdated. Queen Mary was very often quoted as saying that she was living in "Modern times", and therefore one had to adapt. Alexandra, having removed herself and her family from the real world,lived in ignorance of what was really happening in her country, and virtually neglected her duties and function as Empress.

I think there are a few reasons for this. She was terrified of the revolutionaries, and withdrew to Tsarskoe to protect her family.
She realised that she was not sophisticated enough to compete with the glamorous and aristocracy of Russia. ( and she was not).
 
The Russian  system should have changed to a democracy in 1905, which was the perfect moment in history I think, to do so. Had she not constantly, and stupidly clung to the outmoded idea that her husband hang on to being an Autocrat, in order to pass it on to their heir, things may have ended differently. Yes there were many other contributing factors as well, but many of these were aggravated by the archaic ideas of both nicholas and Alexandra.

I dont dislike Alexandra, she was a good mother, and nobody deserves to end your life like she did.

I tend to agree with Queen Mary though, and I dont think she was alone in her opinions of Alexandra either. Queen Mary's commitment to her Royal duties, are today reflected in Queen Elizabeth ll, and her mother, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

One has the greatest respect for them.    

Wow, I don't know where to begin.

There were many reasons for the bad blood between Mary and Alix, as both were young women in the royal marriage market at the same time. Mary was engaged to Albert Victor, who Alix had rejected, so I hardly feel that Queen Mary was a fair judge of Empress Alexandra.

Queen Mary had many years to accustom herself to her role - she had nearly a decade before becoming Princess of Wales, let alone queen consort! Alix arrived as her about to be father in law was dying, and I think did her best with a very difficult situation. That said, I don't think she was tempermentally suited to be Empress of a large country - I think she would have been fine (and well loved) as the spouse of the ruler of a smaller country (such as Hesse, where she came from).

I think making Alix responsible for the entire revolution is going a bit far - certainly it was not advantageous to be Empress in a country that was waging an unsuccessful war against one's home country.

As to democratization, "updating" as you call it, it can also be quite dangerous. Alexander II was assassinated by the Narodnya Volya (People's Will) because he was hours from signing a constitution! I submit to you that democratizing the country would have made the Romanovs not a whit safer.

[CountessKate]

Queen Mary tolerated Alexandra for family reasons, but was quoted as saying that Alexandra was entirely responsible,single handedly, for the Russian revolution and therefore alll the horrors that followed. ( See James Pope-Hennessy's famous biography of Queen Mary). Furthermore, Queen Mary was quite vocal about her opinions as to the level of Alexandra's intelligence, and competence.
The British Royal family was very critical of the fact that Russia was an Autocracy, and outdated. Queen Mary was very often quoted as saying that she was living in "Modern times", and therefore one had to adapt. Alexandra, having removed herself and her family from the real world,lived in ignorance of what was really happening in her country, and virtually neglected her duties and function as Empress.

Well, having just taken another look at James Pope-Hennessy's 'famous biography of Queen Mary', I cannot find a single passage in which Mary's personal views of Alexandra are quoted or indeed suggested.  Pope-Hennessy mentions Alexandra of course, but nowhere can I find any suggestion Mary 'tolerated' her or indeed, had any opinion of her whatsoever.  She was quoted as being shocked and horrified at the death of Nicholas and his family but Nicholas was George's close personal friend and first cousin so the family sympathies would have been primarily towards Nicholas (Pope-Hennessy makes no mention of George's betrayal of Nicholas - I do not believe it was known at the time of his biography and there is no indication that Mary knew of it).  If she was vocal about Alexandra at any point it wasn't something Pope-Hennessy wrote about.

People are entitled to their views about Alexandra - I'm not a fan myself - but I do feel that this discussion illustrates the syndrome which can descend on perfectly respectable historians and biographers and seeps through to this forum, of 'reading back' from later events a foreshadowing of the future.  Hence a haughty, domineering young Alexandra iis rebuked by Queen Victoria for pride and is disliked by her British relations.  There is no evidence which I have read to support that idea and from contemporary journals and letters the reverse appears to be the case.  Nor can I find evidence that there was 'bad blood' or any personal feelings at all on Queen Mary's side towards Alexandra.   

I think the theory that the British royals became critical of Alexandra because of the Rasputin situation and her continual seclusion, no doubt much written about by Maria Feodorovna to her sister Alexandra of Wales, is probably correct.  But if these views were indeed held by the British royals, and I have seen no actual evidence to support it, that does not make a case for suggesting that Alexandra was 'disliked' by her British relatives, including Mary - annoyance and concern about your relations' potentially disastrous behaviour does not mean you dislike them.   And the suggestion that this alleged 'dislike' was caused by her haughtiness with her British family does not hold up in the face of the contemporary evidence.