Abdication and Alexandra

[Tania]

[size=9]Robert,

Where in this thread [or any other thread on the AP Forum] does it point verbatim, that her IH Alexandra was hysterical in public with anyone outside the family, or even in the family ?

In what understanding of Alexandra's deportment in any interface whether incarcerated under house arrest, or in her regular imperial duties, was it pointed out, that whe was hysterical ?

Thanking you for any valid statements that can be of a purposeful point on this, because I think it would be a fair understanding to take if this actually transpired.

Tatiana+[/size]

IMO, if Alexandra had been present on the abdication train, her hysterics  could have gotten them shot a lot sooner.

[Louis_Charles]

On the other hand, Alexandra had models for successful autocrats: Catherine II comes to mind. She was an integral part of the Imperial government by virtue of having Nicholas' ear. She had also been raised within a more-or-less liberal tradition.

Given these circumstances, she seems to have made every conceivable wrong choice. If she was unaware of conditions in Petersburg during the war, that was her fault. If she was ill-informed about foreign affairs, it was her responsibility to become better informed.

Look, being an autocrat is a job. And you don't get a free pass just because your son is sick and you have attractive daughters and a good relationship with your husband. As a matter of fact, both Ella and Sandro tried to warn Alexandra that she was out of touch with reality, and she rejected their advice. I'm sure there were others.

Why? Because she was convinced that she and Nicky, and they alone, knew best. The hallmark of stupidity. Does anyone think he would have abdicated if she had been on the train?

[Tania]

[size=10]Hi Simon,

To lay blame on HIH Alexandra, more has to be known of just what was known and given to her as barifiable information. The word 'seems' to have made every conceiveable wrong choice, is still open to understanding.There is a big difference between 'seems' and making, and taking actions which may be the wrong choice, in terms of governing. She was not the Tsar, so in no way can anything be laid on her. She did not govern Russia !

In today's world it is easier to find out expansively what is happening, and transpiring million miles away in the outter areas of Mongolia, due the enhancements of technology, and 'toys' made for games of warfare, specifically. Just because a loved one of royalty may have a ruler's ear does not make staid policy, our bottom line outcome. There are not enough circumstances for her to have taken reign, nor dictated personal belief to become law, before the Revolution. The same to do with foreign-affairs. You are throwing a lot of suppositions out, but then again these are your opinions.

During the war and unrest, there was enough disruption and communication cut offs that it was hard for those in the field to keep track, so you can't say it was her fault. As on another thread here on the AP Board, some have tried to lay total blame on the Tsar. It just does not make truth.

It seems so easy to sit back and take overall stock of what we think may have transpired, but there was so much more involved, and not enough opened from soviet archives to date, to still read without distortion all that can, and still must come to light, imho.

Tatiana+[/size]

On the other hand, Alexandra had models for successful autocrats: Catherine II comes to mind. She was an integral part of the Imperial government by virtue of having Nicholas' ear. She had also been raised within a more-or-less liberal tradition.

Given these circumstances, she seems to have made every conceivable wrong choice. If she was unaware of conditions in Petersburg during the war, that was her fault. If she was ill-informed about foreign affairs, it was her responsibility to become better informed.

Look, being an autocrat is a job. And you don't get a free pass just because your son is sick and you have attractive daughters and a good relationship with your husband. As a matter of fact, both Ella and Sandro tried to warn Alexandra that she was out of touch with reality, and she rejected their advice. I'm sure there were others.

Why? Because she was convinced that she and Nicky, and they alone, knew best. The hallmark of stupidity. Does anyone think he would have abdicated if she had been on the train?

[Louis_Charles]

Dear Tatiana,

I think she was a beautiful, troubled woman who produced an exceedingly attractive, devout family. I also think that she suffered, much like Marie Antoinette, with a resignation that endows her with a nobility of character.

That being said . . .

The idea that "she was not the Tsar, so in no way can anything be laid on her" is not supported by the facts of the marriage as told in their own words. The biggest support for my points comes not from Soviet propaganda, but from her own correspondence, which is filled with allusions to her and Nicky's presumed understanding of Russia and its' roles in both foreign affairs and internal politics. She governed Russia in that she governed him; he was Batushka and she was Matushka. You cannot have the marriage both ways, in that she dominated him privately and not publicly.

Indeed, that is the heart of the matter. She insisted upon a "private life", as though you could separate them as a Family from their imperial roles.

Have you read her correspondence? Much of it is reproduced upon this website, there is more in A PASSIONATE AFFAIR, and in collections which have been published since the 1920s. She was blamed by people during her time on the throne, people like Maria Feodorovna (who might be expected to have some idea of what imperial duties entailed), Grand Duke Sandro (who begged her to withdraw from meddling in government affairs just before the revolution) and her own sister, who urged her to separate herself from Rasputin.

If you accept the role of autocrat --- which she did --- then you accept the responsibility for your actions and decisions. If her information was faulty, that was indeed her fault. There were people (the above family members, Stolypin and others) who attempted to persuade the Tsaritsa stop meddling. She refused, out of concern for her husband, her son's inheritance, and let's face it, a temperamental inability to admit that she was in error. I can't imagine that there is a "smoking gun" in unreleased Soviet archives that will exculpate her as a ruler, nor was it Soviet propaganda that created the image she enjoys today as an hysteric. Alexandra did that. Well, she paid a terrible price for it, God rest her soul. But whitewashing her actions accomplishes nothing.

And please don't come back with something along the lines of "we can't judge her, she lived in a different age." No one seems to feel that way about the Bolsheviks (nor should they), who also operated with what might charitably be called a limited world view.

Read her letters, and then we'll talk.

[Sarushka]

If she was unaware of conditions in Petersburg during the war, that was her fault. If she was ill-informed about foreign affairs, it was her responsibility to become better informed.

Point well taken. This makes me wonder:

How do you think Marie Fyodorovna woud have conducted herself in Alix's place?

Why? Because she was convinced that she and Nicky, and they alone, knew best. The hallmark of stupidity.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I don't know if I'd call that stupidity. Conceit, perhaps...

It may be useful in this discussion  to distinguish between various types of intelligence: intellectual, emotional, social, etc. I'm inclined to argue that Alix was fairly smart intellectually -- in the classroom/theoretical/book-learning sense -- but not so blessed in the emotional and social arenas. Thoughts?

[Louis_Charles]

Well, like Alexandra, Maria had the devoted love of her husband. On the other hand, she seems to have had no intellectual pursuits or habits to fall back upon (neither did her sister, Alexandra of England; neither was raised to be a bluestocking). I have a hard time imagining her meddling, simply because Alexander III would probably not have allowed that to happen. Nicholas II's temperament was different, and I think his mother tried to play upon his pliability, but found the way blocked once Alexandra arrived upon the scene. Greg King's THE COURT OF THE LAST TSAR has an interesting picture of the Dowager Empress. I have the impression that she confined herself to social rivalry with the Tsaritsa, and had little political interests.

In addition to a different kind of husband, Alex also had to deal with Alexei's illness. Maria had to deal with her son Georgiy's, of course, but Nicholas and Michael Alexandrovitch removed him from being center stage. I think that Alexei's precarious health exacerbated a lot of problems, but again, I fault Alexandra's inability to see "the larger picture". Her rigorous insistence that Alexei become the next Tsar, and that Nicholas transmit his imperial powers undiminished  . . . well, not so realistic.

And yes, I'm sure she was intelligent enough to function in other roles, although her reading tended to run to Marie Corelli novels and religious tracts --- nothing wrong with either of them, but she was hardly educated enough to assist in the rule of a 20th century state. And Nicholas wasn't educated at all, so they were an ominously ill-matched pair from a political stance. From the romantic, they seem to have been idyllic.

[Elisabeth]

Most historians of the Russian Revolution agree that Alexandra's political influence is greatly exaggerated in the popular imagination. In reality, she had little political influence with her husband, not for lack of trying, but simply because Nicholas was set in his own ways and opinions. Sure, there were a handful of disastrous ministerial appointments for which she might be viewed as "responsible;" on the other hand, as Nicholas' biographer Dominic Lieven summarizes, Alexandra's political opinions were so in tune with her husband's, and the number of candidates who fitted the political requirements of the imperial couple so limited, that these appointments would probably have taken place whether or not Alexandra had ever raised her voice in their favor.

Where Alexandra did real and permanent damage to the reputation of the Romanov dynasty was in her championship of Rasputin. Not so much because Rasputin had any real political clout with Nicholas, but because the public perception was that he did. But if Nicholas really had been ruled by his wife and Rasputin, then Russia would never have declared war on Germany and helped start World War I, to which Rasputin was totally and quite vocally opposed. No, Alexandra's supposed influence on prerevolutionary Russian affairs of state has been blown out of all proportion.  

[Belochka]

IMO, if Alexandra had been present on the abdication train, her hysterics  could have gotten them shot a lot sooner.

Oh dear this may be your opinion Robert, but I find this statement absolutely appauling.

Who would have pulled the trigger?

Remember that when they were in exile, she never went into "hysterics" but carried herself with dignity throughout the tragic ordeal.

[Belochka]

Most historians of the Russian Revolution agree that Alexandra's political influence is greatly exaggerated in the popular imagination. In reality, she had little political influence with her husband, not for lack of trying, but simply because Nicholas was set in his own ways and opinions.   

You are correct Elizabeth. Thank you for introducing this point.

When Alexandra was informed about the abdication - she did not go into "hysterics" but in the privacy of their bedroom she weep and wept. She wept for all ....  and she wept for Imperial Russia.

[LisaDavidson]

Indeed, Alexandra behaved impeccably throughout her imprisonment, even to the last moments. And, she died after witnessing the brutal murder of her beloved husband.

That said, Alexandra did see it as her job to always support her husband's political decisions and to have the same political opinions as her husband. This was simply the way things were in her time. She also saw it as her job to prop him up if he was "weak". In this, she was not alone. I encountered many such traditional wives while growing up, and Alexandra was not exceptional in this type of viewpoint.

[Louis_Charles]

I don't particularly quarrel with either Elisabeth's or your points, Lisa, but being the Tsaritsa of Russia is not the same thing as being the wife of the county commissioner. and influencing her husband about zoning issues.

Her letters demonstrate (particularly during the war) that she was an integral part of Nicholas' ability to make decisions. Thanks to the involvement with Rasputin and the unwillingness to concede that anyone other than she and her husband knew what was right for Russia, based upon a combination of temperament (Missy of Rumania had noticed that even as a child, Alicky was wilfull) and the identification of God's will with her own, i.e. the insistence upon a male heir, and then his succession even after it was clear he was unfit because of the disease, Alexandra did a lot of damage.

And then redeemed herself during the months of captivity by her Christian resignation. I have often wondered if she wasn't relieved to drop the burden of imperial rule.

[Lyss]

burden or no burde, with rule comes power and prestige. Although not all people like getting that kind of responsability, once obtained, it's harder to give it away.

[Tania]

It is very interesting of how things are remembered and not. In my reading of several statements not only on this forum and threads, but in books, etc., I am understanding [and to most readers as well that for the mainstay, HIH Alexandra chose NOT to be involved in court interfaces, and stuck primarily to herself, her family, [in the role of mother], and was anything from most reports of how most other Imperial Tsar's wives were. So, this leads me to wonder all the more about those who state presently what they do about HIH Alexandra. Letters aside, what she actually did, and on a daily basis, points exactly to how and with whom her life revolved around. Remember, this was one of the main issues the people had with her, that she was more or less, an invisible part of court interchanges, functions, etc. She however was involved foremost in charitable understandings, and that of the Russian Orthodox Church. Of course she had her private thoughts, and was certainly entitled to them. Like any family member, she probably discussed what she wished. Nothing wrong with that. Every member of every family does that. Most importantly, she was a 'private person' when it came to her emotions. HIH Alexandra was not a person who was without poise, and how to conduct herself in public, or with others. It is careless to typify her as being anything but poised, intelligent and most regal !

IF HIH Alexandra was the way many think she was, in terms of being the opposite of how to conduct her station, etc., how on earth would she take the reigns or dictate her will? This in itself would have been noted immediately.

People don't change so drastically, especially for all the years HIH Alexandra took to herself, along with her illnesses, it did not allow her to involve her much in most issues of court life, or politics for that matter. Her whole life, and focus was her children, and of course the next heir to the throne. Here of course, she had the right to rightfully stand up for her son, and his future. Her thoughts of Russia was of great love. Belochka is quite right, when she wept privately, she wept for Russia. She was not Russia's enemy, quite the contrary !

Anyway, for all of us here, it is more of less conjucture of what we thought she did or did not do.
But based on everything put together of her profile, imho, it is what I come up with to date.

Tatiana+

[Sarushka]

This is a trifle off-topic, and a bit picky as well, but shouldn't it be HIM Alexandra, rather than HIH?

[Tania]

  Thank you Sarushka.
'right church, wrong pew' !
my fingers don't won't to obey me of late.
Your right. 30 lashes with a wet noodle.
I suppose I was stating, Her Imperial Highness, but it should be Majesty.
Dang, protocol again.
I like your trifle's   ...but I'd love a plum pudding, but can't find any,
it's late in the season you know...
Back to Topic...

Tatiana+

This is a trifle off-topic, and a bit picky as well, but shouldn't it be HIM Alexandra, rather than HIH?