What Could Nicholas II Have Done to Preserve the Imperial Throne?

[Tsarfan]

Nicholas needed someone to "take care of" him . . . .

Excuses for this type of mothering are given by comparing Alexandra to Queen Alexandra of Great Britian and to Empress Marie. Both women tried to keep their sons close and their daughters closer. But Queen Alexandra and Empress Marie were sisters and cut from the same cloth.

This is speculation on my part and perhaps impossible to prove because history has not ripped open to public view the marriage and home life of Alexander III and Marie the way it has that of Nicholas and Alexandra . . . but I have always suspected that there was some abuse -- almost certainly emotional and possibly physical -- going on inside the family of Alexander III.

We get glimpses of it through anecdotes.  For instance, there was the instance when Nicholas as a child broke open a relic supposedly containing a piece of the True Cross in order to get at the honeyed wax inside because he was so hungry from the food deprivation imposed by his father.  Instilling a sense of proportion amidst immense luxury is one thing.  Keeping a child underfed is another.

Then there was the comment Alexander made to a minister who was urging him to introduce Nicholas to the work of government when Alexander asked if had had ever heard Nicholas express a serious thought.  This signals an open contempt of the father for the son that almost certainly did not escape Marie's or Nicholas' notice.

More sinisterly, Marie kept an apartment ready at the Tauride Palace to which she could escape with the children when one of Alexander's notorious drinking contests with his boon companions left him out of control.  A wife and children who need physically to escape the presence of a drunken father have, as we would say today, "some issues".

Alexander once shot and killed a valet who was trying to loosen his tie after he fell asleep on a divan in his office.  (The man's family was given a state pension.)  This suggests two things:  Alexander had a hair trigger, and he kept a gun at hand.  (This might help explain the apartment at the Tauride.)

I think it's quite likely that Marie's compulsion to mother and protect Nicky had a very different origin from Alexandra's compulsion to belittle and control him.  (I cannot agree, edubs31, that Alexandra's letters reflect her attempts to build his confidence.  To me, she seems intent -- in an extremely passive-aggressive and nauseatingly treacly way -- on breaking down his confidence and convincing him that he is only safe from trouble when he puts his fate in her hands.)

It might be hard for us to imagine physical abuse going on inside the royal family.  But in Marie's time it certainly occurred between Grand Duke Constantine Nikolaevich and Alexandra Iosifovna.  And remember that two tsars killed their sons and heirs, one directly and one indirectly:  Ivan IV and Peter the Great.

[Vanya Ivanova]

The glaring omission from Tsarfan's posts are Nicholas's responses to his wife's letters at this period in time. Also they have still failed to show documentary evidence that Alexandra was directly responsible for anything concrete, all the posts Tsarfan has made show is that Alexandra gave her husband advice and relayed Rasputin's opinions to Nicholas also. Alixz has decided to concentrate once again on what a terrible person Alexandra was in her opinion and again not alluded to the 'specifics' of Alexandra's supposed political agency.

My own research seems to show that the most crucial policy/appointment that Alexandra and Rasputin were involved with was Nicholas's decision to become Commander in Chief of the army on 24th August 1915. This we know had disastrous ramifications for the regime as it meant every military defeat was directly attributable to Nicholas himself and he was not thereby also present in government appointing his wife to oversee that for him.

As Tsarfan has already kindly taken the time to post samples of Alexandra's letters to Nicholas from this period and I feel that makes the argument unbalanced I will concentrate on Nicholas's letters and actions from this period.

Nicholas to Alix 25 August 1915

''Thank God it is all over and here I am with this NEW, heavy responsibility on my shoulders! But God's will fulfilled- I feel so calm, a sort of feeling after the Holy Communion!''

He then goes onto to discribe how GD Nicholas took the appointment and finishes by saying.

'' Now begins a new clean page and what will be written on it God almighty knows?''

''I am delighted you (Alix) spoke and soothed dear old Goremykin. Please tell him next time that as soon as Government Council and Duma have finished their work they must be closed, quite the same whether I am back or still here!

Why not see Kroupensky, he is a trustworthy man and can tell you perhaps things worth hearing. Fancy wify, helping huzy when away! What a pity you did not peform that duty long ago, or at least now during this war!

Nothing gives me more pleasure than to feel proud of you, as I have all these last months when you worried me thoroughly to be firm and stick to my opinion.
We just finished playing domino when I got a telegram through Alexeev that our 11th army in Galicia attcked two divisions (german) with the result that over 150 officers and 7000 men were taken! And that happended directly after our troops had heard about my taking over the leadership. That is really God's mercy and such a quick one!''

Nicholas to Alix 9 sept 1915 -Mogilev

''You write as you talk. The behaviour of some ministers continues to astonish me! After all I have told them at the famous evening sitting, I thought they might have understood me and that I meant seriously what I said.
Well, so much the worse for them! They were afraid of shutting up the Duma - it has been done! I left for here and changed Nikolasha (GD Nicholas M) against their advice; the people have taken this step naturally and have understood - as ourselves. The proof - lots of telegrams I get from different parts and in most touching expressions. All this clearly shows us one thing - that the ministers living always in the town know extremely little of what goes on in the country. Here I can JUDGE rightly of the real proof among the different classes of people: everything must be done to carry on the war to a victorious end and no doubt is expressed about it. THIS all the deputations I received the other day told me officially- and so it is everywhere in Russia.

The only two exceptions are Petrograd and Moscow-two needle points on the map of our country.

Nicholas to Alix 23 sept 1916 Mogilev

Tenderly do I thank you for your dear long letter, explaining so well your conversation with Protopopov. God grant, he may be a man we want just now! fancy Shakhovsky, who wanted to have to be in that place!
Yes, verily you ought to be my eye and ear there-near the capital, while I have to stick here. That is just the part for you to keep the ministers going hand in hand and like this you are rendering me and our country enormous use. Oh ! You precious Sunny, I am so happy you have at last found the right work for yourself.''

This clearly shows that was Nicholas far from being a malleable automata, Rasputin and his wife when then urged him to do this or that were preaching to the converted, he notably does not thank Alexandra or 'Our friend' when he assumes command either, something he does do in other instances. Alexandra did repeatedly criticise GD Nicholas and Rasputin urged her to do so as he ( Rasputin) quite rightly understood that GD Nicholas was his implacable enemy. However Alexandra neverdirectly tells her husband tom assume command. His letters his clearly show that he respected her judgement, asked for advice and also asked her to help him. It also shows that the decisions were all ultimately his own and her correspondence constantly urges him to have faith in HIS own judgement.

I think it also has to remembered that Nicholas believed that Rasputin was a genuine Holy man and a of prophetic abilities. However Nicholas unlike his wife did NOT have blind devotion for Rasputin and took his advice with a 'pinch of salt' as was well aware rasputin 'used' his wife as a conduit.

Nicholas to Alix 5 sept 1916 Mogilev

'' That Protopopov is, I think a good man, but he is much in affairs with fabrics etc (?). Rodzianko proposed him long ago as Minister of Commerce instead of Shakhovsky. I must think that question over now as it takes me quite unexpectedly. Our friend's idea's about men are sometimes queer, as you know-so one must be careful especially in nominations of high people''

Much of all this belief that Nicholas was a mere marionette for Rasputin and Alexandra comes from Vladimir Purishkevich's speech to the Duma in November 1916, Felix Yussopov cites it also as the inspiration for his actions.

'' The tsar's ministers who have been turned into marionettes- marionettes whose threads have been taken firmly in hand by Rasputin and the Tsarina- the evil genius of Russia and the tsarina.......  who has remained a german on the throne of Russia and an alien to the country and its people''.

Notice how is careful to state that the ministers are marionettes and to avoid any direct reference to Nicholas himself, that is because for a government official (duma member) to have done so would have been treason and as a result directly punishable, attacking Rasputin and even the Empress was not. People also clung to the ancient idea that if the tsar only knew there problems he would help and it was the evil ones around him causing all the problems.

This had led to the idea that Alexandra did Nicholas's thinking for him and Rasputin had both of them in the palm of his hand. Nicholas's own words show that this was simply NOT the case and whilst he relied very heavily on his wife and she from 1915 was involved in government it was at Nicholas's instigation not hers and the most pivotal decisions were made by him not her and certainly not Rasputin.

[Louis_Charles]

As far as the "magic underwear" is concerned, it seems to me that if future historians uncover notes from Ann in which she advises President Mitt (God forbid) to put on his enchanted boxers so that he might more effectively deal with the cabinet, we would have legitimate grounds for criticism of both their faculties. And that, it seems to me, is what we have with the special comb.

Five days after she arrived at Livadia --- five days! --- Alix is writing to Nicky: Sweet child, pray to God he will comfort you, don't feel too low, he will help you in your trouble. Your Sunny is praying for you and the beloved patient --- I think the order of that is interesting, btw --- Darling Boysy, me loves you, oh so very tenderly and deep.  The sugarplum is immediately followed by the stick. Be firm and makes the Drs Leyden or the other Z come alone to you every day, and tell you how they find him, and, exactly, what they wish him to do, so that you are always the first to know. You can help persuading him, then, too, to do what is right. And if the Dr has any wishes or needs anything, make him come direct to you. Don't let others be put first --- that has to be a dig at Marie Fedorovna, doesn't it? --- and you left out. You are Father dear's son and must be told all and asked about everything. Show your own mind and don't let others forget who you are. Forgive me lovy.

I take this note to mean (1) Alix has now spent enough time around Nicky on his home ground to recognize that he is weak  (2) Alix now sees herself to be on a mission from God to brace him up  (3) Alix's definition of bracing Nicholas is to make him centerstage even when it is inappropriate (Alexander III is still alive, and presumably his wife is at least nominally in charge of his care  (4) she is aware of the fact that Nicholas doesn't particularly want to be braced (Forgive me lovy; it reads to me as though this note is the continuation of a conversation, or even argument, that they have had over this matter, and Alix must get the last word.

In Roundling's recent book, she makes the excellent point that most of Rasputin's "advice" was in fact derived from Alexandra herself; Rasputin was far too stupid to disagree with his patroness, and usually only validated her opinions. So while I don't think Alexandra was single-handedly responsible for the fall of the dynasty (hello, World War I), it certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

[Louis_Charles]

Vanya, forgive me, but what you have posted seems to prove Alexandra's influence over Nicholas rather than the other way 'round.

[Tsarfan]

. . . whilst he relied very heavily on his wife and she from 1915 was involved in government it was at Nicholas's instigation not hers . . .

I am about to get tied up for a while and cannot respond at length, but for now let me ask you where I have ever posted anything more than what you wrote in the above excerpt?

I have said very clearly that I agree with you that Nicholas' supposed malleability was something of a myth.  And I have only argued that Alexandra was a factor in bringing on the revolution, not a cause.

You, however, have been arguing that Alexandra had little "agency" in politics and events . . . yet you just post that Nicholas "relied very heavily on his wife and she from 1915 was involved in government".

Isn't that exactly what I have been saying all along?  Or does the word "agency" mean something different to you?  (At law, and even in common parlance, an agent is one who acts independently on the authority of another within specified bounds.  At a minimum, your post proves that Alexandra was an "agent" of Nicholas.)

 

[Vanya Ivanova]

The Protopopov case illustrates the essence of what I'm saying, Rasputin clearly wanted him out, Alexandra clearly advised Nicholas against Protopopov and Nicholas turned round and stated that 'Our Friend has queer ideas about men -as you know' and 'one must be careful in nominations of high people''

Also let it be noted that despite mounting pressure to get rid of Protopopov as Minister of the Interior ( notably including Rasputin) he stayed, right to the end with Alexandra's full support. This proves that Nicholas made his own decisions right up to the end and was simply NOT as influenced by his wife as people make out.

People are blinded by the childish nagging tone and sheer volume of her correspondence to see that. I have access to personal correspondence in my own family going back centuries and the thing that has always struck me about the late victorian period is the peculiarly childish, saccharin language people used, it was all wifykins and hubbywubbykins, N&A were not alone or unusual in this.

I have never denied that Alexandra constantly bombarded Nicholas with her advice, but the distinction has to be (if she truly was a factor in the downfall of the regime) how much did he actually ever FOLLOW it. My quotes above show that when it came to it he DIDN'T. Also there is a distinction about did he ask her to support him or did she force herself into that position? Again Nicholas's correspondence shows he asked her to see this or that minister and read this or that report and was grateful for all those long long letters etc. You can dismiss that as aquiescence to her passive aggressive domination of him but the facts---- assuming command of the army, Protopopov etc DONT support it, and I have not seen one concrete example of where he did follow her advice, certainly no one has included such evidence in any of their posts thus far, just yet more 'opinions' about the level of her influence.

Some people on this forum appear to have formed an opinion based on the contemporary anti goverment propaganda of the time and share with that the mistaken belief that Nicholas's blunders were not his own but actually his wife's aided and abetted by Rasputin. Again if you really believe that then show us a concrete example and quit with the character assassination.

[Vanya Ivanova]

apologies for the 'tone' of some of my comments I just get a bit 'heated' in a debate but genuinely never mean any disrepect to other forum members. ( Also just in case, in my last post I meant quit the character assassination of Alexandra, no one else)

[Alixz]

oh please are we really going descend into a debate on semantics rather back our arguments up with evidence?

The Protopopov case illustrates the essence of what I'm saying, Rasputin clearly wanted him out, Alexandra clearly advised Nicholas against Protopopov and Nicholas turned round and stated that 'Our Friend has queer ideas about men -as you know' and 'one must be careful in nominations of high people''

Also let it be noted that despite mounting pressure to get rid of Protopopov as Minister of the Interior ( notably including Rasputin) he stayed, right to the end with Alexandra's full support. This proves that Nicholas made his own decisions right up to the end and was simply NOT as influenced by his wife as people make out.

How does this quote prove that Nicholas made his own decisions?  "With Alexandra's full support??"  Sounds to me like you are using both ends against the middle. Either Nicholas made the decision or Alexandra gave Protopopov her full support and that is why Nicholas could make the decision.

We are not trying to start a fire storm over this. We see it as we read it and I haven't yet had the time to look for other sources than Alexandra's letters. I thank Tsarfan for all the work he has done and you, too.

However, Nicholas's answers are just a likely to be consent after the fact that Alexandra already dunned the case into him. Remember he once said that he would put up with Rasputin rather than an hysterical Alexandra (paraphrased of course).

And remember that she chose to go with him when he was taken from Tobolsk because she was afraid that the Bolsheviks would force him to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Even the she didn't trust him to make a decision without her and she felt strongly enough to leave Alexei. That must say something about her opinion of her husband and his backbone.

Even with the throne gone and the end coming, she couldn't let him leave him to make his own decisions.

[Vanya Ivanova]

With her full support means she supported Nicholas's decision/opinion which was different to her own and Rasputin's, there is absolutely no doubt that she was involved, and constantly gave him advice, its just where is the proof he took it? thats the crux of it, its one thing to try to exert influence and Alexandra did all the time, but another to actually HAVE influence and that is what   I'm not convinced of. Nicholas was not Alexandra's puppet however hard she tried to make him one.

[Janet Ashton]

Vanya, I have begun digging back through Alexandra's letters to Nicholas, which contain numerous examples of her involvement in government and military matters.  I don't know how much patience I'm going to have for continuing this exercise, but here are a few nuggets just from the first four months of 1915:


She was reviewing official reports for Nicholas:

"The children have lessons or are in hospitals, I have lots of papers from Rostovtzev to finish."  (23 Jan 1915)

"Ortipo [a dog] has been rushing all over my bed like mad & crushed Vilichkovsky's reports I was reading."  (1 Mar 1915)

"At 11 1/2 I have Vilichkovsky with a report which is sure to last an hour - then Schulenburg with his papers at 12 1/2; & at 2 Witte with his affairs, sent by Rauchfuss."  (15 Apr 1915)

FYI, though, Mike - these examples actually ARE Alexandra's affairs. Rostovtzev was her own secretary, unlikely to have been passing on Nicholas's papers, and the other named gentlemen  were doctors or men involved in the various refugee or p.o.w. committees. Witte is Georgy, not Sergei the former minister.

[Vanya Ivanova]

Actually I don't believe she did want him to be her puppet, ever, just to support him and can it really be considered 'meddling' when you've been asked to do it?

Its not of course in any doubt that Alexandra was asked by Nicholas to help him 1915 after HE made the decision to assume command of the army. In this role she obviously had to be made privy to the comings and goings of governance, once appointed by Nicholas how is that interfering? Was Stolypin interfering and meddling in politics when he was appointed (not elected remember) as Prime Minister?

One might argue it was not her job as Empress but it was Nicholas who made it her job and in an autocracy if the Emperor/King whatever wants to appoint someone, then thats that. I have mentioned misogyny before not because of forum members comments but because people at the time were horrified that a WOMAN had been elevated to such a position. That really went against the grain in Russia and is largely why Nicholas was seen to be so weak as his use of his wife in an official capacity effectively emasculated him in the eyes of many. Its also why the true nature of the position Nicholas gave Alexandra has been blown out of all proportion.

Ultimately regardless of what she advised (as my earlier posts show) what actually transpired was what he wanted to happen. In his own words assuming command and dismissing GD Nicholas was his decision and as I stated when Alexandra and Rasputin advised against Protopopov, Nicholas decided he should stay and stay he did. Nicholas may have given Alexandra an official post but in material terms it was extremely limited, Tsarfan made the comparison with a Chief of staff, I would draw the comparison of a private secretary as being more accurate in this instance.

All the previous posts arguments for Alexandra having real influence are best summed by Alixz's quote that his decisions had most likely been 'dunned' into him behind closed doors beforehand by Alexandra. I'm sorry but that is too much of an assumption and cannot be proved unlike Nicholas telling his wife that 'one has to careful' when listening to 'Our friend' as he 'has queer ideas about men' etc and that translating into a minister he wanted to stay, staying.

I' am baffled why people confuse her zeal for being involved by Nicholas with what she actually materially achieved, which was nothing much really.

For the record I don't think Alexandra is some sort of misunderstood saint, views such as '' Russia needs less brains and more soul'' sums up that she was a rapid reactionary and when one thinks about what a deeply intelligent and well informed woman her mother was and her maternal grandfather for that matter, the comparison is rather tragic. However, I think she is misunderstood and gets a very unfair press that seems to be based entirely on what people 'think' she got up to rather than anything she actually ever did, and as I've also stated 'ad nauseum' the Revolution had already begun by 1905, largely due to policies brought into effect from previous reigns and by 1915 was an inevitability and I believe would have been even if Alexandra had never been born.

[Tsarfan]

. . . Mike - these examples actually ARE Alexandra's affairs. Rostovtzev was her own secretary, unlikely to have been passing on Nicholas's papers, and the other named gentlemen  were doctors or men involved in the various refugee or p.o.w. committees. Witte is Georgy, not Sergei the former minister.

Thanks, Janet.  I was unable to locate Rostovtzez on my list of 19th-century imperial ministers and wondered who he was, and I knew it was not Sergei Witte who would have been sending her anything at this point.

However, I don't find it unlikely that Rostovtzev could have been passing on Nicholas' papers among his duties.  Nicholas himself had no personal secretary, and reports were being sent to Alexandra on government matters at this time.  I doubt if the courier would have handed them directly to Alexandra.  They almost certainly would have been received, organized, and prioritized for her by her own secretary before she saw them.

[Louis_Charles]

As I think for so many of us, it was the human relationship between Nicholas and Alexandra that first drew me into the story of late imperial Russia. I also came of age at the height of the Soviet-American political struggle, and Imperial Russia had achieved a sort of "good" status by comparison. with the execution of the entire family (those beautiful girls! that innocent boy!) as some sort of apotheosis of communist evil.

Well, it was an awful thing to do. Shooting them, I mean. But at the same time it (1) was by no means the worst thing that the communists pulled off, even in 1918  (2) was part of a pattern of institutionalized state violence that runs through Russian history. That being said, as I read more about the reign, I came to see them from a different perspective. It isn't the language that Alexandra uses in the letters that is problematic for me, Vanya (Nicholas' letters to her are almost as emetic), it is what she is telling him to do.  Nor did I come to the conclusion that the marriage was a political disaster from reading nasty Bolshevik propaganda, and certainly not from the biographies of Alexandra that have been published in the 90 years since she died. They have been largely either compassionate or at least "understanding". An enormous amount of slack is cut for her because of Alexei's illness, starting with Massie's portrayal in Nicholas and Alexandra.

But. . . . if you read her letters, and God knows the letters probably pale in relation to the amount she was able to buffet him with when they were actually speaking, there emerges a woman who is at the very least reinforcing her husband's medieval political world view at a time when it was necessary for him to be a twentieth century ruler. And that's at the very least; at the very worst you have a consort who views herself as the motor in the partnership, necessary to make Nicholas do the right thing.

This would have been alright if she had possessed the intelligence of, say, Prince Albert or even the Empress Frederick, both of whom were in her genetic background. But instead the woman who emerges from the letters is (1) badly educated (2) of a somewhat --- I'm being kind --- hysterical temperament  (3) determined to get her own way  and (4) possessed of an inflated sense of her own importance, both in personal and historical terms.

Why is this irritating? I think the greatest catastrophe in the history of western civilization was World War I, and "Nicky" and "Sunny" and "Franzerl" were in positions to stop it, and they didn't.

I am also inclined, as I stated in my last post, to believe that Rasputin's advice is ultimately Alexandra's advice --- in other words, if he told her something she didn't want to hear, she ignored it.

[Tsarfan]

I have mentioned misogyny before not because of forum members comments but because people at the time were horrified that a WOMAN had been elevated to such a position. That really went against the grain in Russia and is largely why Nicholas was seen to be so weak as his use of his wife in an official capacity effectively emasculated him in the eyes of many.

You do seem quick to draw the sexism card from the bottom of the deck, Vanya, but I really think sexism had little to do with this.

Empress Elizabeth took great pains to keep her marriage to Alexei Razumovsky a secret because she knew that serious issues would arise if a person below her station was thought to be influencing her in matters of government.  And Razumovsky, indeed, took great care to avoid entanglement in politics or court intrigue.  No one seemed then to have a problem with which sex was in control.  They wanted the anointed ruler in control.

Catherine the Great, who almost certainly married Gregory Potemkin, never allowed any confusion to arise as to who was in charge, despite her giving wide-ranging authority to Potemkin on many matters.  No serious problems arose from this arrangement because Catherine had garnered respect far and wide for her work discipline, her judgment, her predictability, and her temperance -- in short, her ability to govern effectively.  Potemkin was viewed by most as a wise choice to be her counsel, not as the man a woman ought to have beside her to carry the weight of rule.  As talented as Potemkin actually was at government, neither he nor Catherine allowed the impression to arise that he would attempt to eclipse Catherine in any way.

Vanya, the damage Alexandra did to the dynasty and its chances of hanging on through a storm was not in her choice of ministers or in her bad decisions.  I have not argued that she wrested or wheedled control of these things from Nicholas.  The damage she and he both did was in allowing the perception to arise that he was an irresolute tsar whose unstable religious hysteric of a wife had succeeded in exerting undue influence over him.

I will not argue that her letters (or his, for that matter) prove she actually ruled Russia through him.  What I have argued is she helped foster the impression that Nicholas was weak and she was moving into the vacuum.  That was the damage she did to the dynasty as the thread by which its fate hung unraveled month by month after 1915.  And her letters amply illustrate how that impression arose.

Her dogged protection of Rasputin -- which is crystal clear in her letters -- gave him the air cover to run all over St. Petersburg bragging about his influence at court with impunity.  And these escapades became the kernels of the underground press campaign against the dynasty that was to bear its fruit in the army and the Church in 1917.  Institutions that once would have rallied to the defense of their tsar were no longer sure it was him they were defending.

The difficulty that Nicholas' ministers already had in working for him directly was compounded when she became the intermediary between them and him during the war, and it became the impetus for many of them to come to prefer working with the Duma representatives rather than the tsar and his lieutenants to get things done during the war.

This was not sexism at work.  It was far, far more.

[Vanya Ivanova]

The sexism is part of that negative perception though isnt it, I'm not saying that's its THE reason but certainly part of it and Tsarfan, lets face it, race, gender etc DO play a part- they are not just 'cards' but very evident socio-political factors in the real world. Examples/evidence of that here being the observance of the 'Pauline' laws of succession in Russia at the time of Nicholas II and Alexander III's 'May laws' against the Jews etc to name but a few.

The Purishkevich speech underlines Alexandra's status as an a alien, of the enemy race/country ie a spy agent of the enemy. This is the main reason Alexandra caused such a negative impression towards the end. Because people didn't know about Alexei's condition they also could not understand why Rasputin was there, this also increased the negative perception.

However its not rocket science to see that when Russia started to lose a war against Germany, having a German Empress at the time was a political liability. However I agree with you that having that same said 'enemy alien' Empress seemingly so directly involved made that even worse, but can one really 'blame' Alexandra for that?

Louis Charles, I'm sorry but you are making the same mistake as Alixz in that you are dismissing Nicholas's own words based on an 'assumption' of what went on between N&A behind closed doors. Its conjecture, nothing more, based on an impression given by her correspondence and in isolation of what Nicholas actually did and said. You are effectively in historical terms saying that you know more about what Nicholas was thinking than he did.

Alexandra's correspondence IS a reactionary rant, but do you honestly believe that without Alexandra, Nicholas would have been a Liberal? Thats utterly ridiculous and has no basis in fact. Nicholas was a reactionary but to be fair to him when he did try a more liberal course in 1905 and (albeit very briefly) with the 1st Duma, Russia did make a very a  real move towards becoming a constitutional monarchy, however that only made the unrest much much worse and so he quickly abandoned it. This shows that Nicholas was not the quivering spineless jelly he has been made out to be. He tried a course of action that went against his own beliefs for the sake of the country. It really didn't work so he reverted to the hard line approach ( which admittedly he was comfortable with).

Alexander II was a liberal and was killed even when he was radically moving the country towards genuine social reform. My opinion is that things had become so unstable by Nicholas's reign that pursuing a liberal cause would have most likely lost him the throne every bit as much as his reactionary stance. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

For the record I have said some pretty harsh things about Maria Feodorovna but believe it or not I don't dislike her. She had an extremely difficult life and always in the face of that adversity carried herself with immense dignity. Her behaviour towards Alexandra and to a lesser extent her daughter Olga were unnecessary and truly horrible but that does not mean I'm blind to her many good qualities. The incident that sums this up for me is her behaviour towards the Bolsheviks who searched and tried to terrorise her in the Crimea after the revolution-- when they (the Bolsheviks) were doing yet another unnecessary 'head count' of Romanov's in the villa she called down that they had neglected to include the dog!
Given the very real danger one can only be in awe of that.