Author Topic: Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5  (Read 211810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline burger queen

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #75 on: June 17, 2011, 12:46:19 PM »

Strange tsar's eye...


Offline burger queen

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #76 on: June 17, 2011, 01:03:23 PM »

Offline bestfriendsgirl

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #77 on: June 17, 2011, 01:35:56 PM »
Re #141 - looks like they caught him in mid-blink!
Re # 142 - With Kaiser Willy - Oh, gee, his favorite person!  :)

Offline historyfan

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #78 on: June 17, 2011, 09:45:39 PM »
Re #140 - I *adore* this picture of the two of them.
Bottom - that was during Nicholas' recovery from typhoid in spring 1901, correct?

Offline Sarushka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #79 on: June 18, 2011, 12:16:12 AM »
Re #140 - I *adore* this picture of the two of them.
Bottom - that was during Nicholas' recovery from typhoid in spring 1901, correct?

You're correct about the typhoid, but I believe he was ill during the autumn of 1900.

Here's another from the same time:
« Last Edit: June 18, 2011, 12:18:24 AM by Sarushka »
THE LOST CROWN: A Novel of Romanov Russia -- now in paperback!
"A dramatic, powerful narrative and a masterful grasp of life in this vanished world." ~Greg King

Offline nena

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2927
  • But every spring smells like you.
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #80 on: June 18, 2011, 08:03:40 AM »

You're correct about the typhoid, but I believe he was ill during the autumn of 1900.


Correct. According to Radzinsky's book:

'' In the autumn of 1900 in the Crimea Nicholas was dangerously ill. He had a typhoid, and  he was dying. Already there was raised the question: who would inherit the throne?  It was a strange question for Alix: of course, their eldest daughter, Olga...''

Strangely, the newspaper articles labeled that photo to have been taken in 1918 in Ipatiev House, probably because they wanted to make people sure that the Tsar was safe there.

EDIT: I can't tell for sure when the photo was taken, 1900 or 1901, if the recovery took several months, it could be possible that the photo was taken in 1901.  
« Last Edit: June 18, 2011, 08:07:43 AM by nena »
-Ars longa, vita brevis -
Mathematics, art and history in ♥

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #81 on: June 18, 2011, 08:44:05 AM »
I have been away for a few days.  I didn't know about the issue of the photos being posted without permission.  I have gone through the whole

Photos of Nicholas II   #5

And made sure that photos from eBay have been removed. (I know that FA has already done more.)  I also edited for the "thanks" and "new to me" responses, so please don't get upset if your posting count has fallen, and also a few quoting of photos - please don't quote photos.  Please, in the future, put where the photos were taken from.  Some photos do not have a source and I didn't know if they should be deleted or not.

So just to let those who may not have read the previous pages know, you must get permission from the owner of any photos before posting them on the forum.  

grandduchessella has put a thread about this in the Discussion Forum as well.

Thanks
« Last Edit: June 18, 2011, 08:46:31 AM by Alixz »

Offline historyfan

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #82 on: June 18, 2011, 09:09:50 PM »
I have been away for a few days.  I didn't know about the issue of the photos being posted without permission.  I have gone through the whole

Photos of Nicholas II   #5

And made sure that photos from eBay have been removed. (I know that FA has already done more.)  I also edited for the "thanks" and "new to me" responses, so please don't get upset if your posting count has fallen, and also a few quoting of photos - please don't quote photos.  Please, in the future, put where the photos were taken from.  Some photos do not have a source and I didn't know if they should be deleted or not.

So just to let those who may not have read the previous pages know, you must get permission from the owner of any photos before posting them on the forum.  

grandduchessella has put a thread about this in the Discussion Forum as well.

Thanks

Thank you, Alixz.  It's always a good rule to cite sources for photos and text, and although I've only posted a couple of photos (not on this thread), I hope I've followed it.

Offline historyfan

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #83 on: June 18, 2011, 09:10:59 PM »

You're correct about the typhoid, but I believe he was ill during the autumn of 1900.


Correct. According to Radzinsky's book:

'' In the autumn of 1900 in the Crimea Nicholas was dangerously ill. He had a typhoid, and  he was dying. Already there was raised the question: who would inherit the throne?  It was a strange question for Alix: of course, their eldest daughter, Olga...''

Strangely, the newspaper articles labeled that photo to have been taken in 1918 in Ipatiev House, probably because they wanted to make people sure that the Tsar was safe there.

EDIT: I can't tell for sure when the photo was taken, 1900 or 1901, if the recovery took several months, it could be possible that the photo was taken in 1901.  

I thought I'd read somewhere that Alix had been pregnant with GD Anastasia at the time, and that she'd nursed him during the final stages of his recovery.  That's why I thought 1901.

Offline nena

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2927
  • But every spring smells like you.
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #84 on: June 19, 2011, 05:08:42 AM »
Very possible --I think that his illness in autumn and toward the end of 1900 perfectly matches with Alexandra's pregnancy with Anastasia, who was born in the middle of 1901.
-Ars longa, vita brevis -
Mathematics, art and history in ♥

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #85 on: June 19, 2011, 08:00:39 AM »
I do believe that she was pregnant with Anastasia.  Alix thought that she would reign as regent for her unborn child in case it was a boy.  Otherwise, Michael would have been either regent or Tsar if Nicholas had died.

I don't think at that time that Nicholas had yet put the thought of Olga reigning out for anyone to think about.  Also in 1901, Olga was only 6 and would still have needed a regent.

Offline blessOTMA

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2527
  • Tell me the truth, monsieur
    • View Profile
    • Stay at Home Artist
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #86 on: June 19, 2011, 08:54:10 AM »
...... Also in 1901, Olga was only 6 and would still have needed a regent.
I'm thinking Alix believed that would be  her...but it's no wonder it wasn't taken seriously....Alix as regent for a girl? It's like a double  no no for them...so you are saying Alix's only hope of being named regent would be in the unborn child was a son? Makes sense .

"Give my love to all who remember me."

  Olga Nikolaevna

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #87 on: June 19, 2011, 10:28:13 AM »
But the confusing part was that if Michael was named regent for the unborn child and then the unborn child was a girl (as it was) then Michael would have been the next Tsar.

Alix desperately didn't want that.  Even if Alix was named temporary regent while she was pregnant and then the child was a girl (which it was) Michael would still be called upon to be Tsar. 

There was no way that Alix would have been asked to be regent - as you said "a double no no" but the whole thing was very confusing and not easy for anyone to unravel at the time.

I think that Alix did not comprehend the rules of succession as it applied to her and her daughters.  After all, she had been brought up by Queen Victoria who was a woman and a Queen and "in charge" (except for Parliament).

It was the "unborn child" that complicated things.  Without that, Michael was just next in line and he was 23 at this time and would not need a regent for himself.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #88 on: June 19, 2011, 10:56:31 AM »
I do believe that she was pregnant with Anastasia.  Alix thought that she would reign as regent for her unborn child in case it was a boy.  Otherwise, Michael would have been either regent or Tsar if Nicholas had died.

I don't think at that time that Nicholas had yet put the thought of Olga reigning out for anyone to think about.  Also in 1901, Olga was only 6 and would still have needed a regent.

So long as Michael was alive and Nicholas only had daughters he remained Tsetsarevich, period. There would be no "regency" for anyone unless Nicholas died after Alexei was born but was not yet 18. Alexandra could not be his "regent" which would have been the next closest male heir to the throne at the time.  All Alexandra could ever do was pray her next child was a boy, which I think contributed to her later neuroses...


Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Photos of Nicholas II #5
« Reply #89 on: June 19, 2011, 02:27:37 PM »
I think what confuses me is that had Nicholas died before the child was born, and therefore no one could know if it would be a boy or a girl, would Michael have become Tsar even though Nicholas might just have had a son on the way?

Would they have waited to see if the unborn child was a boy or girl and who would reign while they waited, if they did?

I think that is what worried Alix.  She was afraid that Michael would become Tsar while she still carried Nicholas's child.  Not knowing that it would be another girl and hoping that it would be a boy, she wanted to be regent for the unborn child to prevent Michael from becoming Tsar and thereby passing over a possible heir for her and Nicholas.