Nicholas II was Unprepared to Rule. Why?

[violetta]

Count sheremet`ev s.d. (1844-1918) , a court member,left his memories in 3 volumes, published in 2001, moscow. in volume 1 , p.463 he wrote:" I noticed that memory of Peter the Great was dear to him ( to Alexander III). He was his enormous admirer. Once we were talking about tzarevich Alexei and the verdict. AIII fully justified Peter and repeated that it was the only solution in this case. He often initiated conversations on historical subjects". Nikolay II ` favorite tzar was Alexis, the"humble' tzar, peter`s father. doesn`t it tell a lot about triking differences between the father and the son?

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

Count sheremet`ev s.d. (1844-1918) , a court member,left his memories in 3 volumes, published in 2001, moscow. in volume 1 , p.463 he wrote:" I noticed that memory of Peter the Great was dear to him ( to Alexander III). He was his enormous admirer. Once we were talking about tzarevich Alexei and the verdict. AIII fully justified Peter and repeated that it was the only solution in this case. He often initiated conversations on historical subjects". Nikolay II ` favorite tzar was Alexis, the"humble' tzar, peter`s father. doesn`t it tell a lot about triking differences between the father and the son?

Thank you very much for the information! 
So, Alexander III fully justified the death sentence for Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich...This story is very sad, I wonder how it was possible that a son opposed to his father...but it's also hard to believe that a father would accept a death sentence for his own son...very sad story. 
Alexander III was convinced that this was the only solution, but it was really the only possible solution?
 

[Ausmanov]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. I have to admit I don't know allot about Nicholas's education .But I believe that Nicholas inherited his distrust of the idea of a  constitutional monarchy, Duma's and so on from his father, which may have been one of the reasons for the collapse of the Empire. I also read, i think it was in Romanov Autumn  that Nicholas did not have as much support from other members of the Romanov family as other Tsars have had, do you think this could have been a contributing factor? Also, as i understand it, Nicholas's brother Mikhail {is it spelt like that?} was not very involved in the nations politics, do you think it would have helped if this situation were different? I would love to hear your opinions on these ideas as i am only fair new at this and would love some clarification on these matters.

[*Tina*]

... Nicholas's brother Mikhail {is it spelt like that?} ...

It could be spelled Michail or Michael (English version for the same name, as far as I know), since it's "Михаил" in Russian, so both ways are acceptable.

[Romanov_fan]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. I have to admit I don't know allot about Nicholas's education .But I believe that Nicholas inherited his distrust of the idea of a  constitutional monarchy, Duma's and so on from his father, which may have been one of the reasons for the collapse of the Empire. I also read, i think it was in Romanov Autumn  that Nicholas did not have as much support from other members of the Romanov family as other Tsars have had, do you think this could have been a contributing factor? Also, as i understand it, Nicholas's brother Mikhail {is it spelt like that?} was not very involved in the nations politics, do you think it would have helped if this situation were different? I would love to hear your opinions on these ideas as i am only fair new at this and would love some clarification on these matters.

It's defintely true about Nicholas inheiriting his distrust of the idea of constituational monarchy from his father, and it defintely was one of the reasons for the collapse of the empire. But Nicholas also inheirited this distrust from generations of Romanov ancestors, not just from his father, although his grandfather Alexander II had been more liberal. Indeed, Nicholas was not supported by his uncles for example, and there was much division and family strife and this did indeed contribute to the collapse pf the Empire, a house divided against itself can't stand, as they say. As for Nicholas's brother Mikhail (that's the Russian spelling of it, but it's correct)it's true he was not very involved in politics as you say, and it's hard to know had this sitiuation been different how much that would have helped, that's more speculative than your first two questions and nobody really knows for sure, in my opinion. You find the first two ideas you mentioned in many books about the Romanovs, so they are defintely factual.

[Alixz]

She was ahead of her time, most definitely.  That quote could apply to so many things - sort of like "Be careful what you wish for" or "With great power comes great responsibility".

What I find very intriguing is that for all her words in this speech and her supposed duty to England, Elizabeth left the country with no clear heir to the throne.  So much for duty to the country.

Now that sounds like resounding self indulgence!  Only she can reign, then what is to follow for her beloved country/citizens/peasants?

Sorry, at the end of her life she wasn't a great anything.

T

Hey T - Good to see you in this thread.

Peter the Great also left Russia without a legal successor.  So Elizabeth I is not the only ruler to have done that.

Peter died trying to write down a name, but he left it for too long.


Up until Paul I passed the Pauline Laws of Succession, the sovereign could name anyone to succeed him/her.  Paul changed all that, but oddly enough only at the end of the 1700s.  So the very Pauline Laws that we always talk about were only in effect for about 100 of the 300 years of the Romanov Dynasty.

I think that any of the Emperors could have changed the laws of succession.  After all, they were autocrats.  As to why they didn't?  Only they could say.  And it would be better to change the laws of secession by law than by murder as Peter and Catherine and Alexander I did.

[Naslednik]

"I also read, i think it was in Romanov Autumn  that Nicholas did not have as much support from other members of the Romanov family as other Tsars have had, do you think this could have been a contributing factor?"

I found that comment in Romanov Autumn interesting.  Charlotte Zeepvat's point, I believe, was that when AIII became Tsar, he and his brothers were old enough to brush away undue interference from their own uncles, and create support around the new Tsar.  But NII was so young, Georgy was ill, Misha a child, and their uncles in the prime of life (and used to being in the spotlight).  It would take a certain kind of strength, very close to bullheadedness, to go it alone with no help from your uncles or young brothers.  I understand NII's difficult position.

[PAVLOV]

I think that Nicholas was unprepared to rule because his father excluded him from the day to day administrative and public duties of a future monarch. Perhaps it was thought that because he was chosen by God to rule, he would automatically also be given the tools to become tsar as part of the  "package"
His education was certainly lacking, however, one does not know whether any appropriate subjects were available in those days. These days I would imagine that political science, history and law would be 3 subjects required to do the job. But I think the main reason was his exclusion from, and the basic involvement in 'running the show' by his father. King Edward VII was also thought to be unsuitable by his mother, QV, who also excluded him from everything, and he turned out to be a wonderful king, despite all the trouble he got into every now and then, because he liked to have a good time every now and then.
I think any monarch needs to win over the respect and support of the people they rule, this is the most important factor, in my opinion." Love" flies out of the window with the first bread shortage, as we saw in St Petersburg at the beginning of the Revolution. In those days bread symbolised many things to the ordinary people and workers.  Neither Nicholas or Alexandra imbued their people with any of this. They withdrew themselves because they were afraid of being assassinated. And look what happened in the end. The British Royal family have had many attempts, real and false, on their lives. You don't see QE11 scurrying off in her Daimler to hide at Balmoral because she is too afraid !!   Ruling a nation is not for sissies.
They had private tutors in those days, mostly appointed by their parents. Nicholas has an Englishman, and was then palmed off to the army.
So yes, I would imagine that his education and preparation was not up to the job of being Emperor of Russia.

This combined with a personality which was the opposite of his father, a number of dominant uncles, whom he feared and tried to keep happy, together with an interfering, incompetent, socially inept, demanding and unstable wife, was a recipe for disaster. What other reasons can there be ? None in my opinion. My apologies if this sounds harsh. We tend to " glamorise" the Romanovs, and sometimes forget the "nitty gritty" of the whole situation.

[Alixz]

Actually , Nicholas's education - the book learning part- was pretty comprehensive.

The actual involvement in day to day operations of the government, however, were not extended to him by his father who thought him "a child".

Edward VII was 60 years old when he came to the throne in 1901.

Nicholas II was only 26 in 1894.

Edward had more time to learn and to become comfortable with himself and his position even though Queen Victoria did not give him much to do.  Also, the personalities of the two monarchs were completely different.

Edward couldn't wait to take responsibility and Nicholas shrank from it.

[violetta]

"I also read, i think it was in Romanov Autumn  that Nicholas did not have as much support from other members of the Romanov family as other Tsars have had, do you think this could have been a contributing factor?"

I found that comment in Romanov Autumn interesting.  Charlotte Zeepvat's point, I believe, was that when AIII became Tsar, he and his brothers were old enough to brush away undue interference from their own uncles, and create support around the new Tsar.  But NII was so young, Georgy was ill, Misha a child, and their uncles in the prime of life (and used to being in the spotlight).  It would take a certain kind of strength, very close to bullheadedness, to go it alone with no help from your uncles or young brothers.  I understand NII's difficult position.

Someone said that your "character is your fate" i e your education and knowledge of the entire system doesn`t necesserily lead to your being a good monarch. Nikolay was a mild and submissive person, his father looked down on him at times due to the afore-mentioned qualities.he was so well-behaved that count sergey vitte who opposed the tzar`s policy at the end of his life admitted that the emperor was the most well-behaved and polite person he had ever met.  Nikolay was, in all probability, not able to express his objection or his opposite opinion.  one of his contempoaries said that the tzar agreed with the opinion of the last interlocutor.no wonder that his uncles started to govern him and his decisions.obviously, they expressed they respect and obedience in public but in private they shouted at him and sisn`t restrain from criricising his deciisions. MF tried to be his main advisor in order to limit the influence of his tall uncles ( unlike all Romanov men Nicky was short, or of middle height, and his uncles towered over him thus producing unpleasant effects on the young monarch, I think ). in the initial period of his reign Nikolay often repeated :"I`ll ask mama". hence, lack of knowledge wasn`t the main impediment during Nikolay`s reign.his father wasn`t born to ascend the throne.in fact, his parents neglected him a bit and paid more attention to Nixa. What`s more Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Alexander III, wasn`t considered a bright person. his education wasn`t good enough either, his parents didn`t invest as much energy in him as in case of Nixa. Sasha became the heir tot the throne at 20 (if i`m not mistaken) so he was even less prepared. but he was a strong personality...he wasn`t considered a weak tzar...a symbol of russia with his beard and unbelievable physical strength...

[Naslednik]

They withdrew themselves because they were afraid of being assassinated.

Well, I disagree with several things said here, and think it is important to try to throw away our 21st century glasses as much as possible.  The whole issue of NII's character is subject to the 'editing' that happens when one is not on the winning side of history.  Add to this Bolshevik propaganda.  And then N's charming, quiet, non-confrontational temperament gave him the reputation for being weak even in his lifetime.

But consider what it is you are saying when you call a man weak, or afraid of assassination.  First the facts: N was 12 when he saw AII's mutilated body.  He survived Borki (yes, an accident), Otsu, and even the Blessing of the Waters attempt in January 1905.  Read GD Olga -- she said N didn't even move when the shots went past him, and when questioned later by Olga replied something like "well, what could I do?"  I think it is fair to say that none or few of us knows what it is like to face the hatred of your own people, so we must be careful when we point fingers.

He did retreat from public view, no doubt, but that was not from fear or weakness.  I believe that Alexei's illness caused a fundamental change in his personality, but that's a thread that belongs elsewhere!

[mcdnab]

Nicholas was certainly personally brave but that doesn't make a great monarch. He was terribly young to succeed and that was terribly bad luck for him. He fell in love with a woman completely unsuited to the position of Empress who despite the influence of her grandmother soon adapted to the idea of a monarchy that had in her view no need to be "loved" or "respected"  by the people. Nicholas' character, bearing and intelligence was completely unsuited to the position he was called to occupy and he had added handicaps he took after his mother's family in looks and stature which further reduced his capabilities to dominate his own family let alone the Russian Empire. Ironically despite his failures he remained committed to the autocracy egged on by his wife when others of his family might have thought a compromise was most likely to succeed.

[Alixz]

They withdrew themselves because they were afraid of being assassinated.

Well, I disagree with several things said here, and think it is important to try to throw away our 21st century glasses as much as possible.  The whole issue of NII's character is subject to the 'editing' that happens when one is not on the winning side of history.  Add to this Bolshevik propaganda.  And then N's charming, quiet, non-confrontational temperament gave him the reputation for being weak even in his lifetime.

I have been saying this for years.  Yet, I am often ridiculed for my thoughts on this matter.  I agree completely that "it is important to throw away our 21st century glasses as much as possible".

[PAVLOV]

We can argue this subject endlessly. The bottom line is that they were both wrong for the job. Good parents they were, he was a good husband, but she was not Empress material and he was totally inept. Sure, they were Royal, and in charge of the largest country on earth, but that does not automatically qualify them for the job.
They went to Tsarkoe to protect the Dynasty from the revolutionaries. You read this in every history book on Russia.
So whether you look at the situation " with 20th century glasses" or "21st century" glasses it makes no difference. They withdrew from the Russian people and their duties as rulers of their country, and suffered the consequences. They inflicted it on themselves. 

If you are the ruler of a country, you rule, you are seen, you open hospitals, launch ships, mix with people you dont necessarily like, go  on royal tours, eat with the peasants, but you get out there and do the job until the day you die. That is what Royalty is all about. Its not for the faint hearted. Elizabeth II is a perfect example. She is in her 80's and she is still slogging away. the Queen Mother was the same.
Compare her to Alexandra !!
You do not hide away, lie on you mauve chaise longue all day, and criticise everyone and everything, and ignore good advice.

I think Nicholas and Alexandra would have saved themsleves and their country and millions of lives had they abdicated in favour of someone more suitable. Neither  of them were suitable. The end result proves their ineptitude.

And there were suitable family members in the Romanov family, who would have done a better job. I dont think Russians thrive on being ruled by weaklings. They like a bit of bloodshed and domination. Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, President Putin, its part of their nature, and part of Mother Russia. Russians are tough people.

AS QUEEN MARY SAID TO ONE OF HER CHILDREN WHEN THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT DOING ROYAL DUTIES :
 
" We are the British Royal family, we are never tired, and we love visiting hospitals"

Perhaps if they followed the same line of thought, and got closer to their people, many things would have been very different.

Queen Mary is also quoted as saying, in James Pope Hennessy's famous biography of her, that Alexandra was, because of her attitudel, responsible for the Russian revolution.

There were also other factors, but it does make one think !

We could argue about this endlessly as well, but both of them together certainly were good in many ways, and dismally lacking in the most important things. When you are the monarch of a country, EVERYTHING else comes second. Your duty to your country comes first.

Nicholas's unfortuanate personality was a disaster for his country.     

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

Queen Mary is also quoted as saying, in James Pope Hennessy's famous biography of her, that Alexandra was, because of her attitudel, responsible for the Russian revolution.  

Honestly, I'm sorry for Queen Mary (she was a great woman, and I have a deep respect for her), but I'm not agree with what she said about Alexandra...yes, it's very well know that Empress Alexandra was a real disaster during the WWI and that she was totally obsessed for Rasputin, and that she was a "possessive" wife, and so on...
But the revolution is a very complicated argument, and so I think that consider the revolution as "Alexandra's fault" seems to me excessive...just my opinion.