Empress Alexandra and Maria Feodorovna

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, they did. They both wanted to be close to Nicholas II. One was his mother, one his wife. They were different personalities. One of the things that I have always particularly liked about Alexandra was that she was straight forward and honest, even if that led to problems for her.

[griffh]

I am right with you Imperial Angel and I am hoping to start a thread about Alexandra's fine Victiorian virtues based on the re-evaluation of the postive aspects of the Victorian reformers.  The thing I think people miss with Alexandra is how important the elevation of those reforms were for Alexandra.  Of the tragedy is that she was playing off that agenda against the indiffernce of a Russian aristocracy that basically was impervious, like the American West, to the Victorian reform movement.  While the Russian aristocracy was still dealing with the pleasures of an 18th century menu, the American west was indiffernt because of its expansionist "lynth law" mentality. 

I suppose the only place, that such intinsically Victorian agenda for reform as the Young Empress embodied, was in England, the American New England, or possibly certain anti-Prussian German Duchies. 

I know this is going to sound very unorthodox, but even the Grand Duchess Ella, though embracing the principles of Victorian reform through her introduction of the first practical nursing order of Orthodox nuns, still was not quite as radical a reformer as Aliz. 

[dmitri]

Alexandra had a poor relationship due to the fact that she was too dim to learn from her wiser, more experienced and popular mother-in-law. I think that Alexandra Feodorovna in fact was insanely jealous of Maria Feodorovna and knew that sex with Nicholas would always win out over the love he had for his mother. Alexandra totally dominated Nicholas. I think there would have been civility between the two women but of course Marie knew she could not influence her son. That was one of the reasons she went to Kiev. She was absolutely disgusted at how badly Alexandra was mismanaging the governance of Russia.

[pandora]

Unfortunately, many wives and mother-in-laws have poor relationships due inpart to one party unwilling to recognize that their influence is no longer as strong as it once was. With that said, much could have been accomplished by both the DE & Alexandra if they had learned to work together using their strengths and weaknesses at the appropriate times.
A person can only be "dominated" by another if they allow themselves to be placed in that position and marriage isn't about domination, it's about devotion. Nicholas & Alexandra were truly in love and devoted to one another. He valued her opinions on topics - right or wrong - as should be in any marriage/relationship. Using the sex angle is rather odd as sex is part of any healthy marriage so it doesn't play out that it was used as 'bribe'. Both Alexandra & Nicholas were people of decent intellect so that comment, in my opinion, cheapened them as humans. They were a married couple, deeply committed to each other and unfortunately neither capable of seeing the writing on the wall concerning Russia.

[anna11]

I have a feeling the bad relationship between Marie and Alexandra has been somewhat overstated. Like Pandora said, many young wives and mothers in law have poor relationships, it's just the way things are. They seem to have gotten along well enough to see each other every once in a while and be civil and friendly, even if they weren't bosom buddies. After all, Alix was the mother of Marie's grandchildren.

[AGRBear]

Sometimes,  the relationship between Alexandra and her mother-in-law is understated.   Did you know  Maria Fedorovna plotted against
Alexandra?

LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA  by Coryne Hall p.  273:

>>In the wake of Nickholas ' visit Dagmar was distressed.  Once again she had failed to make him see that the influence of Alicky and Rasputin was endangering the dynasty.  According to Pince Youssoupov,  she wrote to her son "begging him to send Rasputin away and to forbid the 'Tsarina to interfer in affairs of state'. Nicholas told his wife and she broke off relations with the family.  The Tsar and Tsarina sent no Christmas presents to the Grand Dukes or their families that year.<<

This was in 1916.

Rasputin's murers were placed on trial.

Dagmar wrote, again, to her son,  Nicholas II  p.277:

>> Dagmar followed his with a tactful letter, expressing her worry and distress that she had been unable to help during the last trying months.  Then she came to the subject upper most in her mind, "One should reach in oneself and forgive....  I am sure you are aware yourself how deeply you have offended all the family by your brusque reply, throwing at their heads a dreadful and entirely unjustified accusation.  I hope also... that you will alleviate the fate of Dimitri Pavlovich by not leaving him in Persia whre the climate is so dreaful... [he hd tuberculouis].  It is not like you with your kind heart to behave in this way;  it upsets me very much."<<

>>...Nicholas does seem to have suffered a nervous collapse.  Ministers and Ambassadaors were shocked by the change of his appearance.  Rumors circulated that the Empress was giving im drugs...<<

p. 278

>>,,,Dagmar was worried about the curret state of affairs.  On 19th January 1917 she noted her concern in her diary, again adding her wish that Nicholas  would stop followng his wife's disastrous counsel.  She now received few letters from Nicholas.   Sandro and Felix hoped that once the Tsar was back to the front,  they and the Dowager Empess could descend upon Petrograd.  There they would have Protopopov and Alicky and her confiddante Ann Vyrubova be sent to the Crimea.  Only by this course of action, Felix felt, could disaster be avoided.*<<

The plot thickens.

AGRBear

*Bold print is my own.

[anna11]

I was thinking more of their pre-war relationship when I made the above post. I know that Marie was concerned about Rasputin, and Alexandra's inteference in politics, but I meant the personal dislike they had for each other is often overstated imo.  And I seriously , seriously doubt Alexandra was giving Nicholas drugs.

[Schvibzik]

I think an important fact is being overlooked in this discussion of why Alix was treated differently and with less respect than Minnie.

I believe it all comes down to the husbands, if not ALL then 80%

We all know that Nicky in no way commanded the same type of respect as his father.

Almost from the start Alix was astounded by the lack of respect shown to him, especially when his father was on his death bed and no one came to him to give updates etc..

So in effect Alix was trying to fight  more than one battle when it came to supremacy over Minnie

Why would the court show her any respect when they did not even show it to her Husband who was the Tsar?

Sure no one dared cross Minnie…but who gives a poop over Alix? Especially since they knew Nicky was a softie

Just my opinon

[Schvibzik]

And also as mentioned previously, I think Alix was a scapegoat.

From what I have read of Minnie, I do not think she was a very nice person at all

She comes across as a vindictive manipulative person.

She was the more experienced and older and it was her DUTY to take Alix under her wing and teach her and guide her.

What she did was the opposite, you would think that being older and wiser, she would know that harmony within the family ..to some degree = harmony in Russia.

Everyone knows Nicholas was a weak ruler, and instead of facing up to the truth everyone blames Alix because she is foreign and because her husband is so weak that even a woman with the slightest back bone would appear to be dominating

It happened in France and it happened in Russia, I think there is a lot of things at play here, and certainly Alix did not help matters and contributed to the malicious gossip being spread about her by her actions

But I think it is highly unfair to blame the revolution on her, I think Minnie purposefully used the family against her and outcasted her, never realising the devastating results

If anything, I think MF is just as responsible for the tragedies that took place as any one of the major players

No one supported these two on the throne, no one was their friend in the family, everyone it seems mocked them or tried to take advantage of them

That is their real tragedy, the fact that they had such a family not them being shot by the Bolsheviks

This may be a bit far fetched but I do not think the Bolshevik scene would have happened, had the royal family acted as a true family and showed the imperial couple, love , closeness and support.

To not receive this support from your mother is even worse

[LisaDavidson]

I think an important fact is being overlooked in this discussion of why Alix was treated differently and with less respect than Minnie.

I believe it all comes down to the husbands, if not ALL then 80%

We all know that Nicky in no way commanded the same type of respect as his father.

Almost from the start Alix was astounded by the lack of respect shown to him, especially when his father was on his death bed and no one came to him to give updates etc..

So in effect Alix was trying to fight  more than one battle when it came to supremacy over Minnie

Why would the court show her any respect when they did not even show it to her Husband who was the Tsar?

Sure no one dared cross Minnie…but who gives a poop over Alix? Especially since they knew Nicky was a softie

Just my opinon

First of all, please avoid constant reference to royal persons by their family nicknames. It is a very annoying habit and unfortunately one shared by a few others who post here.

Second of all, this is not an "opinion", it is rampant speculation based upon no facts. "Sure no one dared cross Minnie?". The lady was a Dowager Empress, and I'm sure many people crossed her, so I don't understand how you could say this. "They knew Nicky was a softie?". "They" knew this how?

Third, you contradict yourself all over the place. If it was the husbands of these two women who were responsible - for what exactly?, then they had no differences personally, which is certainly not the case. You go on to say that Maria Feodorovna "was not a nice person". The woman had a job - and she was not Emily Post or Miss Manners - she was the leader of Imperial society, and "nice" probably would not have worked too well for her or anyone else for that manner.

Lastly, the relationship between the two empresses was very complex and cannot be reduced to a few trite phrases - but you have your opinion?!

[aleksandr pavlovich]

Re:  Reply #113:    Thank you, Lisa, especially for your first point.  This is a hideously pervasive habit throughout many of these topics on the Board. Globally (and to no specific instance or post), I agree that outside of a direct quote,  references to Imperial/Royal, etc. personages by their family ---note the word "family"------nicknames/names is disagreeable.  I would dare say that NO ONE who posts  is so closely related to the Romanovs (in particular) that would allow them to be so familiar.  By the use of these names,  people apparently wish to demonstrate some sort of "inside knowledge" or are overly-identifying with their fantasy relationships.  We should remember the axiom:  "Familiarity breeds contempt," and contempt is exactly what to expect when certain protocol rules are consciously ignored. Of course, ignorance of these points can be expected by those who GENUINELY do not know better, but you have effectively called this now to their attention and they can learn from it.   I  DO NOT hold the Romanovs in sacrosanct esteem -- they were woefully flawed creatures, as  indeed we all are,  but I respect the demands of protocol.  The first thing that you will hear, I expect, is that "It's too long to write XXXXXXXX," or "Come on, these are modern times," etc.  Good manners are ageless.   AP

[LisaDavidson]

Re:  Reply #113:    Thank you, Lisa, especially for your first point.  This is a hideously pervasive habit throughout many of these topics on the Board. Globally (and to no specific instance or post), I agree that outside of a direct quote,  references to Imperial/Royal, etc. personages by their family ---note the word "family"------nicknames/names is disagreeable.  I would dare say that NO ONE who posts  is so closely related to the Romanovs (in particular) that would allow them to be so familiar.  By the use of these names,  people apparently wish to demonstrate some sort of "inside knowledge" or are overly-identifying with their fantasy relationships.  We should remember the axiom:  "Familiarity breeds contempt," and contempt is exactly what to expect when certain protocol rules are consciously ignored. Of course, ignorance of these points can be expected by those who GENUINELY do not know better, but you have effectively called this now to their attention and they can learn from it.   I  DO NOT hold the Romanovs in sacrosanct esteem -- they were woefully flawed creatures, as  indeed we all are,  but I respect the demands of protocol.  The first thing that you will hear, I expect, is that "It's too long to write XXXXXXXX," or "Come on, these are modern times," etc.  Good manners are ageless.   AP

I agree that good manners are ageless and timeless, as well.

I think it's about respect of other people, whether they be royal or not. I do not mind an occasional reference using these familiar names, but a constant use of them to me shows disrespect.

[clockworkgirl21]

Something one person finds disrespectful may not be disrespectful to someone else. I don't think nicknames are disrespectful at all, as long as it isn't something like "Bloody Nicholas."

It seems to be something that comes up a lot around here. Personally, I think it's a good idea to do what you think is respectful, and let others do what they think is respectful.

If some people like to call the IF by their nicknames because it makes them feel closer, what's wrong with that? Just my opinion...

Schvibzik, be careful arguing with a Mod there. 

[ChristineM]

I never cease to be amazed and appalled by the didactic tones of Ms Davidson.   Perhaps if her domineering tones were mixed with some facts, they wouldn't be quite so objectionable.

Reading the thread, I thought 'Schvbzik' made a valiant endeavour to pin down the tangible antipathy between Maria Feodorovna and her daughter-in-law which HISTORY from FIRST HAND accounts have delivered.   I would have thought, that as an 'historian', Ms D would have been aware of this, otherwise she could stand accused of re-writing history.

There is no doubt that Maria Feodorovna was totally opposed to her daughter-in-law from the outset.   Her meddling and the active recruitment of her brothers-in-law not just to conspire against Alexandra Feodorovna, but also against her oldest son (of course her attitude towards the new Empress itself alone, belittled and derided her attitude to her own son.... Alexandra Feodorovna was, after, all his chosen his wife and the Empress) is part of recorded history - NOT a figment of 'Schvizkik's' imagination.   It is all down to  respect.   A virtue which one could be forgiven for believing is missing in the attitude of Ms Davidson to contributors here.   Perhaps this is why she finds it so easy to defend the behaviour of the dowager empress towards the Empress.

The causes of the downfall of the Romanov dynasty are long and complex.   However that envious, devious little minx - Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna - certainly played a large part THROUGHOUT the last two decades of the dynasty.   Alexandra Feodorovna with her quiet, shy constitution did well to cope under the public humiliating by her mother-in-law.    Simple, obvious examples can be witnessed in the woman's insistence in always taking precedence, not to mention the crown jewel debacle.   Eventually Alexandra Feodorovna collapsed under the strain of her inability to produce a healthy heir.   These facts alone, bring into high relief, Nicholas II's inability to assert himself as a human being - never mind as an emperor upon whose empire the sun never set.

Where is the point in posters having respect for moderators when it appears that certain moderators have not one iota of respect for posters.   


Ms Davidson - were it not for the posters - warts and all - you would have NO forum.   Please kindly bear this in mind.

tsaria

PS:  I have always thought the Director of the Imperial Theatres, Prince Volkonsky's, apt description of Mathilde Kschessinskaya - 'that black-eyed, she-devil of the ballet', could equally be applied to Marie Feodorovna.... the black-eyed, she-devil of the Empire.

Psychologists could develop an interesting theme in analysing Nicholas Alexandrovich's attachment to Mathilde and the striking resemblance of her to his mother - physically, mentally and emotionally.




 

[Forum Admin]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with "Alix" "Minnie" "Nicky" etc.  I mean, it is alot easier to type these than "HIH Alexandra Feodorovna" Evo Impernalnaya Gosudar Veyliyshestva Marie Feodorovna...etc.  Second, they are rather all long since quite dead, and the references were in no way derogatory.

I think Schvbik raises some interesting points, and I would myself enjoy seeing a more detailed discussion of the points raised with specific events cited.  For one, we all know how MF refused to allow AF to use of the Imperial Crown jewels to which AF was entitled as reigning Empress, that alone speaks volumes.  Further, the correspondence seems to show that MF and AF were often at odds over issues and put Nicholas in the middle, yet Nicholas really never put his foot down to his mother in support of his wife, he was always trying to placate both sides, to the frustration of both women, imo.

Frankly, is this not the whole purpose of this thread, to discuss these issues?? carry on...