Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life

[Ena]

George, when grown,  reminds me of Dimitry....don't ask me why!   But then he was distantly related to him so why not?

I thought the same thing!  The resemblance is uncanny.

[helenazar]

Arleen,

To be fair and honest I have never viewed a really good picture of Natalie.

TampaBay

It just goes to show how beauty truly is in the eye the beholder!

[Arleen_Ristau]

I think that there are several good pictures of Natalie in the Crawford's book.....Michael and Natasha.

I guess I'm just an old romantic at heart, I loved that book!

Arleen

[ashanti01]

Don't believe it's been posted. Wish I could make it bigger. : (

[Tsaritsa]

I always thought Natasha was stunningly beautiful.  I don't recall ever seeing a bad picture of her. 

[Lesley]

My impression of Nathalie was that she had an extremely seductive personality.  According to the Crawford's:  "Dimitri was also in Moscow and one evening he came round to the hotel to see her.  In the siting room of her suite, he suddenly blurted out his love for her.  She was seated at her writing desk in the corner next to the bedroom door, 'with a kind, tender and somewhat sad expression on your face' as Dimitri would later remind her.  pp 173 - 175 Michael and Natasha 

Feelings of jealousy plagued GD Michael because of this.  GD Michael: "So you have seen each other again and teased each other and professed moving feelings.  And you have reproached me for falling for somebody all the time, whereas it has never happened and I have never said moving things to anyone!  When I think about it, my heart sinks and there's a nagging pain in my chest.  Since we started living together, I have experienced this feeling for the first time - it is a complicated feeling, there is frustration, jealousy and deep sadness and all that is made worse by our present separation." p. 175.

She had a manipulative personality.  Page after page after page of this book attest to this fact.  GD Michael was tormented over her antics with Dimitri.  Sorry folks, while the Crawfords might have found her a sympathetic character, I did not.

[Lesley]

I've spent the afternoon rereading sections of Michael and Natasha.  I would like to amend something I said.  I do, as a fellow imperfect human being, have sympathy for Nathalie.  She certainly suffered for many of the decisions she made as well as circumstances beyond her control: revolution, loss of husband, loss of son, etc.  Nevertheless, I find her a rather manipulative, opportunistic femme fatale.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Lesley, I have to admit it has been years since I read Michael and Natasha. So I am not exactly sure how you found Natasha manipulative.  Could you refresh my memory?  I know that opinions can differ.  I don't recall ever thinking of Natasha in that way.  My clearest memory was after reading the book I felt a great deal of sympathy for Michael, Natasha, Tata(?) and George.  Actually that is not quite correct.  I felt bad for all of them.  To be bound by such unyielding traditions.  That can't be modified for love or any reason.  Betraying all common sense.

Before this book I was firmly on Nicholas and Alexandra's side.  After reading the book I saw the whole situation in a new light.  Natasha was no longer evil.  She was a woman in love and that love was returned.  But because of her station in life she could never be Michael's equal.  I don't believe the divorces even played a part.  The fact that she wasn't of equal birth was the crux of it.

[Romanov_fan]

Some royals were lucky enough to make a marriage that was a love match, like Nicholas and Alexandra, with a suitable fellow royal. Some like George V and Queen Mary were lucky enough to make a marriage that although in the begining not a love match, became one. Nicholas's parents were lucky in this respect as well, their marriage, arranged basically ended up very happy. Most royals had marriages that were just okay, basically arranged matches, where the couple got along, but it wasn't a passionate love match. Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark might be an example, or in the Romanov family perhaps Grand Duke Vladimir and Marie of Mecklenburg Swherin- not sure there, or perhaps a marriage like that of KR and his wife. Then there were the ones like George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, arranged where the couple came to hate each other..some royals found love outside their class like Micheal, and what they were doing isn't wrong to us, but in those days, by members of these dynasties for the most part, if it led to marriage, it was regarded as wrong.

Nicholas saw it as undermining the fabric of the dynasty.I guess it is hard to fuse their viewpoint and our viewpoint, we come from different worlds. I agree that it was mostly class here, divorce contributing. What was seen as bad was class breaching marriages, really. I think we tend to see all lower class women who married much higher up like Natalie as manipulative, kind of a stereotype. Some were, some weren't. I really don't know. If she was, she certainly paid later on. I have always been touched by their love story, so well illustrated by some of these pictures, but also, if Micheal had married a fellow royal and had suitable heirs, that would have been better for the dynasty, particularly with Alexei's fragile health. I don't think it would have put less pressure on Alexandra over Alexei's illness though, as she did not want to see any but her son suceed. It might have felt like less pressure in general, to the dynasty though- nobody except the Vladimirvitchi wanted themselves to suceed.  There are so many conflicts in this story. Had Micheal been allowed to marry Baby Bee, wasn't it that he was in love with and wanted to marry, would there have been less conflict? They weren't allowed to marry because they were first cousins, too royal. So many standards, too little compromise. One standard or the other should have went, Micheal became a victim of it, as both the women he wished to marry were unsuitable, but from very different viewpoints. He also had a romance with an unsuitable noble lady, I believe before Natasha. There was no willingness to change, but change might have come if another kind of change hadn't come, that destroyed their world.

[Nadya_Arapov]

I would concur with Lesley about Natasha. At least in part. Although the terms I would have used are self-centered and thoughtless. I intend to transcribe and post some of the letters she wrote to Michael (and his to her) this week. Actually, I'm hoping to transcribe a bunch of stuff about Michael this week if I can since I'm stuck at home. Back to the point, though, some of Natasha's words to him just seemed so cruel to me. I don't doubt for a moment that she loved him sincerely, I just think she was self-absorbed. She came across (to me at least) as the sort of person who wants what they want, when they want it, and doesn't necessarily stop to think how their actions will affect others. She was a social-climber, no doubt about it IMO, but I do think she loved him. It would be impossible not to feel sorry for her. She lost the love of her life in a truly, unimaginably horrific way, and then lost their son.

That said, I was also really saddened by the way Nicholas treated his brother. His behavior struck me as incredibly callous. I realize given his upbringing and outlook he would never have welcomed the marriage, and perhaps he could never have recognized it, but to have Michael declared insane! My God! That is rather extreme (to put it mildly) by any standards. Nicholas didn't appear to have had any sympathy for Michael or to have ever tried to see things from his perspective. It never seems to have occurred to Nicholas that he may have helped bring about M&N's relationship in a round about way. If you look at the timeline Michael comes across as someone almost desperate to have a family of his own in the early 1900s. First Michael falls for his first cousin Baby Bee. He is forbidden to marry her because they are first cousins. Ironically enough, just a few years, later Nicholas at his uncle's request (begrudgingly) recognized the marriage of first cousins Ducky and Kirill, but he wouldn't budge for his own brother. That had to irk Michael. I wouldn't be surprised if Ducky (Baby Bee's sister) - who had been incensed at N for refusing to overlook church law and allow the marriage - didn't take a perverse satisfaction in knowing that if only Nicholas had let Michael and Beatrice marry Natasha would probably never have entered the picture. Then a year or two later, after the romance with Baby Bee, he falls in love with Alexandra "Dina" Kossikovskaya. He decides to marry her, even bribes a priest to carry out the ceremony, then is all but put under house arrest by Nicholas to prevent him from marrying Dina. That same year he is forced to break things off with Dina (1907) he meets Natasha and they begin their relationship not long afterwards. Given his obvious desire to marry someone it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone when he quickly found a new love.

Imperial Angel, I have no doubt that he viewed the situation just as you described, but Nicholas, even if he couldn't recognize the marriage, he didn't have to treat Michael so harshly. He seems to have been harder on him - his own brother - than he was on any of the other GDs who strayed.

[Romanov_fan]

I thnk he had to recognize Ducky and Kyril's marriage because it affected the succession, possibly, if something happened to Alexei, and also Micheal of course. What year did he recognize the marriage of Ducky and Kyril ( I can't recall?) was it after it became clear the sucession through Michael would be morgantic, and thus not acceptable? I am not sure. I think the fact that Ducky and Kyrill pulled their marriage off, they managed to get married, and the succession issues and Nicholas always following his uncles led to the approval of their marriage- the Vladimirvitchi were powerful. I believe however, if Baby Bee and Michael had somehow managed to get married behind Nicholas's back, that the marriage might have been eventually recognized, but only if something happened to Alexei, and Michael had a suitable male heir. Ducky and Kyril could never have gotten approval beforehand, they simply married without approval, as later Michael did with Natasha, but the union was eventually recognized. Micheal and Natasha's marriage had issues of she was a commoner, and divorcee, so obviously that was never going to be recognized.

But had Micheal married Baby Bee without approval, and managed to have a suitable heir, who knows.. but Ducky and Kyril both wanted the marriage passionately, as did Micheal and Natasha. This might well be true of Baby Bee and Michael, because she certainly reacted badly to the end of it, but they weren't daring enough. Back to Natasha, she certainly was a passionate perhaps volatile woman with the jealousy issues. I think their love story is a very touching/ fascinating one, more so than that of Nicholas and Alexandra even, because they defied so much to be together. The photo of them kissing on this thread, and a picture of Natasha pregnant with their son, in 1910, 8 months along really sum this up for me, that photo is in the Michael and Natasha book, and probably on this thread somewhere.

[Lesley]

Tsaritsa:  I shall put together a few quotes for you with some further reflection on my part. It may take me a few days.  I suspect Nadya and I might be quoting from the same letters (grin).

I, too, have no doubt Nathalie loved Michael.  Nevertheless, she knew the "rules" going into the game, as did Michael.  We might find the "rules" insupportable and obnoxious in this day and age but we cannot judge the situation wholly by our standards.  Michael had promised his family he would not marry Nathalie and they were devastated that he had betrayed his oath to them.  As we all know, Nicholas had an extremely difficult time enforcing Romanov dynastic rules within his extended family.  Their pursuit of "personal happiness" versus family considerations made Nicholas's designated position as "enforcer" untenable.  He could not count on these people which added greatly to his stress as ruler.  Most importantly, I think he was truly blind-sided by his own brother's duplicity.  To me, Nicholas's stern actions toward Michael were a result of his anguish because he felt he lost the only man in his family he could truly trust and thought, that of all people, Michael would understand his (Nicholas's) position.

Ack.  I could go on and on.

More later....

[Nadya_Arapov]

  He could not count on these people which added greatly to his stress as ruler.  Most importantly, I think he was truly blind-sided by his own brother's duplicity.  To me, Nicholas's stern actions toward Michael were a result of his anguish because he felt he lost the only man in his family he could truly trust and thought, that of all people, Michael would understand his (Nicholas's) position.

Ack.  I could go on and on.

More later....

I have to respectfully disagree. I never had the impression that Nicholas valued Michael or viewed him as trustworthy. Nicholas seemed to view him (and treat him) as a child, even when Michael was nearly thirty. His letters mentioning Michael don't give any hint that he ever sought Michael's opinion about anything. At least I've never read one letter that indicated he did (or a diary entry to that effect). Then, when Michael defied Nicholas, because he didn’t want to be separated from his family if Alexei died, Nicholas had him declared crazy. I think anger, not anguish, was the reason for Nicholas' action. It infuriated him that Michael, his baby brother, would betray him (and I agree it was absolutely a betrayal in N's opinion) when Alexei was ill. He never stopped to consider that Michael also had a very young son whom he didn't want to be parted from. Apparently, Michael's son just didn't count to Nicholas.

[Nadya_Arapov]

I thnk he had to recognize Ducky and Kyril's marriage because it affected the succession, possibly, if something happened to Alexei, and also Micheal of course. What year did he recognize the marriage of Ducky and Kyril ( I can't recall?) was it after it became clear the sucession through Michael would be morgantic, and thus not acceptable?

Nicholas recognized Ducky and Kirill's marriage (according to KR's diary) 15 July 1907. This was only four years after Nicholas had forbidden Michael to marry Beatrice. To answer your question, no, it wasn't clear at that point that Michael's heirs would be Morganatic. Michael didn't meet Natasha until December of 1907.

Lesley, I have to admit it has been years since I read Michael and Natasha. So I am not exactly sure how you found Natasha manipulative.  Could you refresh my memory?  I know that opinions can differ.  I don't recall ever thinking of Natasha in that way.

I can't speak for Lesley, but here are some examples of what I consider to be Natasha's self-centered thoughtlessness.

To put the first letter in context, Michael was at the front and right in the thick of things. He could have been killed. What does Natasha write to complain about? She hated his appearance and wanted to know why he couldn’t manage to look more dapper while fighting at the front!

Natasha to Michael Alexandrovich – 10 June 1915
…You want me to like your looks so badly, yet you do very little to ensure it – look how awfully you now dress. Your boots are horrible, you’ve done away with your aiguillettes, and instead of the St. George you wear  a piece of some narrow ribbon…You used to be so elegant and I regret to see you so changed.
(Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 189)

Natasha to Michael Alexandrovich – 20 June 1915
I know you were upset by what I said about your appearance, but Mishenka it is true…I like elegant people and that is exactly why I pay attention to the way you’re dressed. If I hadn’t cared I wouldn’t have noticed.
 (Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 190)

In another letter (also written to him while he was at the front) she whines to Michael about her lackluster accommodations.

Natasha to Michael Alexandrovich – 20 April 1915
I realize that it is impossible to leave everything as it is, for it all looks beggarly, and it is not appropriate for you to live in such a tumbledown. In six years we haven’t yet made ourselves a real home, because you don’t care how you live and I couldn’t do anything single-handed. Now, little by little, the circle of my acquaintances is growing large, for I can’t behave like a hermit and refuse all invitations – at the same time these invitations embarrass me, because I feel and see that my house is inferior to those of other people and so I can’t receive them in the same style as they receive me and as I would like to receive them. And I happen to be very popular – the Putyatins keep inviting me all the time and now all their acquaintances are beginning to follow suit.
(Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 183)

[Nadya_Arapov]

Then there are the letters she wrote to him about “Mr. Lily-of-the-Valley,” Grand Duke Dmitri, and her friendship with and “tender love” for him. I don’t think their relationship (hers with Dmitri) was ever more than platonic, but it was highly insensitive IMO to write to Michael about this nonsense when he was in danger and surrounded by death. In her defense she did write kinder letters during the same period, too, but we are currently discussing her less attractive side.

Natasha to Michael Alexandrovich – 30 January 1915
We (she & Dmitri) kept teasing each other all the time, then we called a one-day truce to say goodbye, for he told me that we would not see each other for a very long time and said that he loved me very much, believed me to be very good and honest and because of all that he had decided to runaway from me. Yet if I happen to suffer grief again, I was to write to him and then he would be by my side and do everything to help me. Isn’t it touching to hear it from such a person as he is? I am genuinely grateful to him for such an attitude and I feel less lonely for it. Even if we never see each other again, it is still easier to live knowing that you are loved and respected…
(Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 174)

Michael Alexandrovich to Natasha – February 1915
So you have seen each other again and teased each other and professed moving feelings. And you have reproached me for falling for somebody all the time, whereas it has never happened and I have never said moving things to anyone! When I think about it my heart sinks and there’s a nagging pain in my chest…it is a complicated feeling, there is frustration, jealousy and deep sadness and all that is made worse by our present separation.
(Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 175)

She wrote to him months later about a telephone conversation she had had with Dmitri.

Natasha to Michael Alexandrovich – 30 June 1915
(We) chattered about all sorts of silly nonsense for 35 minutes or so…He wished me a happy birthday in the most charming way and said he would come the next day to lunch, which he did. I was delighted to see dear Lily-of-the-Valley. I love him tenderly, I really do. You know, I have nothing to amuse him with here and therefore if he comes it is only to see me, which means he is fond of me...
 (Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 192)

Michael Alexandrovich to Natasha – 7 July 1915
What are you writing to me about Lily-of-the-Valley, i.e., how tenderly, tenderly you love him and also that he comes to see you because he likes you and has totally succumbed to your charm and besides, you say that conquering such a heart means much to you – I believe that if you just stop to consider the meaning of these several sentences you have written, you will realize what pain you have given me by writing them; alas, I am now getting more and more convinced that I was right when I said your feelings towards me and your love have changed and that intense, undiluted feeling used to be is no longer there and will never be again. But my feelings for you are the same as ever. Yes, it is sad, so sad – I used to believe your absolute love for me, I almost believed it more than my own and I never thought it could ever change. You will probably say that’s all nonsense and it’s not true – no, Natasha, it is not nonsense and it is true!
(Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 192-3)

Natasha to Michael Alexandrovich – 10 July 1915
My dearest Mishchenka, it makes me very sad to know that you are so upset because of Lily-of-the-Valley. Believe me, my affection for him does not in the least interfere with my love for you. It is true that I am very fond of him, he is very precious to me and so is his regard for me, but none of this can affect my attitude to you – and especially now that I have succeeded in directing my relations with Lily-of-the-Valley into the channel of my choice, which is the only channel I can ever allow for the relations between myself and anyone else – i.e. just very warm and affectionate terms, with a touch of flirtation if you like, witty and amusing and with mutual teasing, but certainly nothing beyond that.

He no longer talks to me about his love, as though it had never happened, but I can feel that he admires me and that imparts a certain piquant interest to our meetings. Besides, we seem to be very like each other in character and I could even say that we are kindred souls…No one who knows him well can help loving him…and even those who start off being prejudiced against him, change their opinion once they get to know him. So I, knowing him better than others, also know what to love him for…
(Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford, “Michael and Natasha,” pg 193)