Author Topic: Friends/Social life?  (Read 52702 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RomanovFan318

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #135 on: February 05, 2006, 07:15:28 PM »
Quote
Did most people who had dieases like that back then, die though? I mean like now you get blood transfusions or soemthing right?


Yes. Back at the beginning of the 20th century most of those born with hemophilia did die at a young age because there was not much that could be done for them medically. I can't remember what book I read this in but most of them died as children or teenagers.    


amanduhh592

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #136 on: February 05, 2006, 09:06:42 PM »
I read that most people who had it, died before they they were 25.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #137 on: February 06, 2006, 08:30:27 AM »
Tsarvitch Alexei might not have lived all that long that is true, but the fact that he was royalty, and was even more taken care of than many young royals and of course the fact that he was born in 1904, well into the 20th century made it more likely he would have had a slightly longer life. Prince Leopold, Queen Victoria's son, went on to marry, have two children, and live to be in his 30s. There is no reason Alexei could not have done the same.

RomanovFan318

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #138 on: February 06, 2006, 10:36:39 AM »
Good point IA. Not all who suffered from it died young and the fact that Alexei was royalty and taken very well care of probably did make a difference. Prince Leopold was not the only royal hemophiliac to live a relatively  long life. Prince Waldemar (son of one of Alix's sisters) lived into his fifties.  Had Alexei not been murdered I like to hope that he too would have had lived long enough to marry and have a family of his own.  I think he would have been a good father.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #139 on: February 06, 2006, 10:48:50 AM »
Yes, if Alexei had not been murdered, and his health had been stable, who knows what he might have done? I think he would have attended parties,etc, and had a social life in so far as it was required, although nightlife could never have his life, because of his health. But he would most likely have tried to do what he was able to do, and do it well. Just my thoughts.

amanduhh592

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #140 on: February 06, 2006, 04:27:33 PM »
I think he would have been a good tsar...

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #141 on: February 08, 2006, 08:23:31 AM »
I think so too, and it is interesting to debate what kind of duties in society he might have had, or a social life outside these duties. One thinks with him, however, whatever his inclinations, he would mostly be attending events that he had to attend, and woudn't have been able to spend so much of his other time going to parties, and such, due to his health.

RomanovFan318

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #142 on: February 08, 2006, 10:14:54 AM »
I think he would have been a good Tsar to had he been given the chance.  I think he would have been better than his father and more decisive because I think he was a bit more strong-willed. I also think that he would have realised that it was impossible to be an autucrat and would have moved Russia toward a more constitutional form of government. As for social events I can see him moastly attending official functions but if his heath permitted it it I think he might have attended parties that his realtives threw.  I think he was  more outgoing than his mother and father.

And I like to debate the "what it" questions too!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by RomanovFan318 »

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #143 on: February 08, 2006, 10:50:30 AM »
I think he had qualities his parents didn't possess that might have made him a good ruler, and seems to have been outgoing, as Alexandra certainly wasn't. Before his marriage Nicholas actually had quite a social life!

amanduhh592

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #144 on: February 08, 2006, 03:17:48 PM »
joy0318-"I think he would have been better than his father.."

YES, i totally agree, i was going to say that, but i wasnt sure if anyone who, like, flip out on me for it. but yea I think he would have been better.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #145 on: February 09, 2006, 10:06:51 AM »
Yes, I think he might have been better as a ruler too. I agree with anyone who says that.. ;)

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #146 on: February 09, 2006, 12:36:43 PM »
Let's see here . . .

Nicholas II was reared by a father who knew how to run his empire and to change the tide of events, even if we might not today like the direction he took.  He was reared by a mother who ruled St. Petersburg society and understood the propaganda power of her role and how to leverage that power for the benefit of the monarchy.

We all know the outcome of Nicholas' reign.

Alexis was being reared by a weak-willed father who mishandled a revolution in 1905/06, who took Russia into two wars for which it was ill-prepared, and who managed to create the widespread impression, whether accurate or not,  that his wife was the real power on the throne.

He was reared by a mother of questionable emotional stability, who retreated from her public role into a mysticism that even the larger imperial family thought bizarre, and who, at least in the latter stages, meddled disastrously in politics.

From this starting point, on what conceivable basis can anyone conclude he was going to be a good tsar?

Because he was adorable?  Because he was crippled with recurrent illness?  Because you could just hug, hug, hug him?  Is that really all it would have taken to have ruled the mess of a Russia he would have inherited?

Sorry I interrupted the pajama party . . . .

JaneEyre5381

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #147 on: February 09, 2006, 03:26:02 PM »
I have to agree with Tsarfan on this.

Aleksey didn't receive (to my knowlege at least) any lessons on how to run the government, or to handle ministers.  He was spoilt by his parents and it took Pierre Gilliard's warning to get them to let the boy take some responsibility for his actions.  Gillaird argued that if Aleksey was sheltered from making even small decissions, he would be a weak-minded and useless ruler.  His parents agreed, but nothing else was done.

His father took him to Stavka during the war, but that proved to be nothing but entertainment for the boy.  He wasn't present at any meetings that were concerning the affairs of state.

If things would have continued at that pace, Aleksey would have come to the throne just as ignorant as his father, but witha stronger will and impulses.  I'm rather scared to think of what the country would have gone through under his rule.

In my opinion, Aleksey should have been shaddowing his father in the meetings with the ministers and foreign heads of state, starting at maybe age eleven or twelve.  He could at least learn by obeservation there.  Formal instructions from perhaps good ministers that were no longer in office could come at age fourteen.  That would have given him the background for the big responsibility of running the country.

In the end result, his father's ineptness and weak mind ran the country into a revolution and the Family into a grave, so of course we'll never know what exactly would have taken place.

leushino

  • Guest
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #148 on: February 09, 2006, 09:07:53 PM »
Couldn't have said it any better, Dasha.  ;)

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: A Social Life?
« Reply #149 on: February 10, 2006, 06:26:58 AM »
Let's remember that Alexei was still a young adolescent in his father's final years on the throne.  It is simply impossible to predict anything about what kind of a tsar he would have made.  Perhaps some guesses could be made about his character.  But that is a very different thing from a talent for ruling.

If one looked at Nicholas at the same age, one would see signs of a temperate, soft-spoken, rather conscientious man in the making.  But, other than the fact that his formal training for rule had not begun (and, unfortunately, was not going to be), there were no clear danger signals that he would utterly fail as a tsar.

If Alexei were to have become a good tsar, he would have had to do so by avoiding most of his father's example and utterly ignoring his mother's advice on pretty much everything.  I see no basis for anyone making the case he was gaited that way.  The only one of the children who was old enough to yield clues and who evinced at least some promise in that area was Olga.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »