I hope folk won't judge me by the way I behaved...or didn't behave...as a child.....
You are right there--- unless the negative immature behaviors persist into adulthood or evolve into something even worse, that's is what growing up is supposed to be... An open laboratory of sorts, where one should feel secure enough to experiment and make a few mistakes, and with enough guidance to show one the better way.... The rest being up to choice.
How do I think of the unfortunate young boy? Pity, of course for his ailments, whatever they really were, and his terrible and untimely demise. I read that he was mischievous, but until now had not heard of a campaign of willful, mean misbehavior. The point of most accounts seemed to be that Alexei wasn't any different from other children save in his artificial social position and his bleeding syndrome.
Big news, I, too, raised a son, basically a bright child, and he went through plenty of stubborn times and had deeper issues, until lately, in young adulthood, he seems to finally be shaping up to be a good character. From most accounts, it seems Alexei was finally developing some empathy and dignity, and might have squeaked through and become a good man.
And it is true, the fact that he wasn't corrected as perhaps he should have been was his parents fault. But there are explanations for their leniency with him and perhaps even Anastasia, the babies of the family. Babies of large families often get spoiled, yet most of them turn out OK also. These were brats, not, IMO, future pychopaths or even sociopaths.
Alexei DID have SOME serious health issues--- whether hemophilia or anemia, it was chronic, capricious, hereditary, and apparently incurable. These influenced his mental state in ways one can't completely understand unless one, too, suffers them, and suffers them as a helpless and as-yet-unknowing child--- or its parents. Worse, he was born the only son to a monarch in a country whose right to inherit the throne was dictated by his gender. There were several very bright older sisters there, but the sickly little boy was the heir.
Now, who had the right to physically chastise the prince, if that was possible? ONLY his parents in that case. And what, aside from the fact that one couldn't smack or even rebuke the child too harshly because of his condition, would have stopped Nicholas and Alexandra from being too strict? Their backgrounds, one supposes.
Alexandra, of course, had been left motherless at a very early age (and also lost a small sister at the same time), and I don't think spent a lot of time with her father. So she was brought up by her governesses, her older sisters, and an indulgent grandmother who was the queen of another country (and who had, in her time, not been an very enthusiastic mother to her own large brood.) Not entirely helpful role models from whom to learn motherhood skills, though the basic material WAS there--- as royal mothers go, Alexandra was one of the better ones. To make matters worse, the disease of her son appeared to have descended from her side of the family. Even if Alexandra had been just an ordinary, middle-class mother, she would have had issues disciplining that particular child.
And Nicholas? Seems to have been a decent enough guy, too bad he was in his position. How was HE raised? By a father who, most accounts agree, was in every way an overwhelming presence, towering over his entire family, tough and stern. I don't recall reading that he beat up on HIS children either, but it seems safe to suggest he didn't NEED to. His mother, Maria, was a more emollient influence, but she strikes he as having been domineering in her own subtle way. In any case, she allowed some of her husband's rules to prevail, such as hard beds for the kids, a relatively vigorous lifestyle, etc. One really can't blame Nicholas for trying to be a more empathetic and sympathetic presence in his own children's lives (in spite of also being a busy full-time monarch) even if it meant letting them get away with some shenanigans.
However, he and Alexandra DID emulate their relatively isolated upbringings in some ways, sequestering all their children from outside schooling and too many friends outside the family circle, and maintaining some trappings of strictness and relative simplicity in their surroundings. ALL their children, for all their gifts and abilites, seemed immature and naive compared to their contemporaries, judging by even the most favorable accounts.
So it doesn't surprise me too much to hear that, after all, they went off in their own ways.... Olga with her emotional problems, Anastasia with her pranks, Maria with her weight problems, Tatiana with whatever problems she had, Alexei undisciplined because, aside from his father, there really wasn't anyone else who COULD--- Even if tutors like Gilliard had some authority to restrain him, it had to be verbally, and it still had to emanate from the royal parents, who not only had this family crisis to deal with, but a huge empire's worth of crises, too.
Still, that doesn't mean there wasn't some hope of their growing up well, and the closeness of the family seems to have been positive in many ways. I think a lot of the family's admirers admire just that fact, that here was a royal mom who breastfed her babies and nursed them through their ailments, a royal dad who took them fishing and also sat up with them when they were sick, and who could talk to them. A royal married couple who apparently didn't indulge in infidelities or everyday cruelties that spring up between spouses, and slept in the same bed.
When I think of Alexei, he reminds me of another indulged, sickly royal heir, who died close to the same age.... Edward VI, only legitimate son of the much-married Henry VIII. As a motherless child, it was recognized that he had to be disciplined SOMEHOW, yet his indulgent and sick father wasn't about to chastise him, and nobody else dared rebuke him. So he was given a "whipping boy" who had to endure his physical punishment. This seems to have worked out, because litle Edward soon was so distressed at seeing Barnaby (who was also a playmate) smacked in his behalf, that he began to behave much better. It's interesting to speculate on what sort of monarch Edward would have grown to become, much the same as Alexei.
And one final point: Alexei was a footnote to history, but, inadvertantly and unwittingly, a very important one. No question he had a malady that drove his parents, especially his mother, to deep despair. No question that this desperation drove Alexandra to accept the presence, ministrations, and finally, political advice of one Rasputin (and then, members of his circle), who simply would not have been a factor if the mother had not believed he could help her son. And no question that her devoted husband, while not accepting everything Alexandra channeled to him from good/bad old Father Gregory, was influenced to a considerable extent by his wife in some of his (often poor) decisions.
Not an inconsequential record for a footnote....
