Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2

[Превед]

Putin's mother was Georgian who remarried and abandoned him or so it was reported in the Georgian press.  Interestingly not much has been publicly disclosed about his early background other than his service as a KGB officer.

I don't think this can be true. His English, Russian and German Wikipedia articles note that his mother was a factory worker (just like his father) called Мария Ивановна Шеломова (1911—1998). While his father fought in WW2, his mother survived the Siege of Leningrad, in which his older brother died. His paternal grandfather was a cook to both Lenin and Stalin. His ancesors (Путины, Шеломовы, Чурсановы, Буяновы, Фомины etc.) were serfs in the Tverskaya Guberniya. His earliest recorded ancestor, a certain Яков Никитин* was in 1627/28 a serf in a hamlet called Borodino belonging to Иван Никитич* Романов, uncle of the first Romanov Tsar Михаил Фёдорович.

*Note the lack of -vich patronymic in the serf's patronymic name, at the time a privilege ("писаться с вичем") reserved for nobles like the Romanovs.

[AGRBear]

I believe that Nicholas' sister Olga was also called Baby from time to time, and that this practice extended beyond the IF and Russia. We have to put ourselves into Victorian times to look at things with balance, and gushing names like Sweetie, Darling, Dear one, etc, were part of the culture.  My Edwardian grandmother always called her children and grandchildren her 'dears.'  I call my kids "honey bunnies."  Frankly, I think current western culture has gone way too far in the undemonstrative direction.  Don't you think we all could loosen up a bit and belt out some "darlings"!?  I mean, our loved ones are our darlings...

I don't think there is anything wrong with terms of endearment within ones family or letting it spill out a little with friends.  If this kind of "honey bunny" words are offensive to your own ears,  then don't use them.  However,  there is no need to belittle or deny others in the words they choose.  Just be happy that they are lovingly addressing each other rather than carrying a big stick and knocking people around because they believe the "rod" is still better to used than words.

AGRBear

[Maria Sisi]

Reading the antidotes of people who knew Nicholas one thing I noticed popping up every time was that when something bad was happening Nicholas seem to show no reaction/emotion at all, giving off the view that he just didn't care.

Apparently during when Bloody Sunday happened he was having wrestling contest or something with Sandro and the gravity of the situation didn't seem to register. Some even said throughout the whole 1905-06 revolution Nicholas showed little feeling at all.

Sandro and a few others mention when family members went to the Emperor telling him of Russia's extreme situation he stood in the back puffing a cigar while Alexandra was front and center as if she was the ruler. Nicholas wouldn't say anything except inject his opinion every now and then.

When Rasputin was murdered everyone at headquarters was celebrating it was noted they were shocked Nicholas showed no reaction or emotion at all as if the act didn't bother him at all. It wasn't until he returned to Tsarskoe Selo and saw his wife's hysterical reaction that he acted all outraged.

Apparently no reaction when he abdicated according to those around him. It was only in his diary that he even showed a hint of feeling with his "All around me betrayal, cowards and deceit" (not exact quote, just paraphrasing)

Sandro said when he and Maria Feodorovna went straight to him after the abdication he showed no emotions. After leaving Nicholas alone with his mother when he returned he saw the Dowager Empress sobbing while Nicholas just stood there puffing a cigar, something Sandro mentions Nicholas doing A LOT.

It was also noted while in captivity by the captors that Nicholas showed nothing. They have a lot to say about the behavior of Alexandra and everyone else but with Nicholas they seem to have very little to say at all.

His lack of open reactions and emotions seem to have given others around him a negative opinion of him since its constantly mentioned in situations where negative things happen.

 

[Kalafrana]

You make a very interesting point.

Of course, some at that time might have said that Nicholas showed admirable sang-froid in the face of crisis.

Ann

[edubs31]

Ties in pretty well with his fatalist sensibilities. Something bad happens? Assume it's all part of God's plan. Once you subscribe to that explanation it's easy to feel at ease when even tragic events occur. Of course he never seemed overly excited when good things happened either.

Of course, some at that time might have said that Nicholas showed admirable sang-froid in the face of crisis.

Yes indeed. And has his reign been more successful I think one would compliment his temperament and suggest that it was this personality trait, above all else, that helped him focus and make important decisions.

It's an interesting study really. As an autocrat neither he nor Alexandra felt burdened with having to play the normal political games most politicians are forced to. Because of this I think we see a measure of authenticity in their personality and actions that is sorely lacking from politicians/leaders of Democracies and even constitutional monarchies. Nicholas & Alexandra never believed they had to sell anyone on their personality or political agenda. They never had to appeal to the masses or win elections to stay in power...or at least so they thought.

In this regard they were probably the two worst politicians of their era.

[Kalafrana]

Nicholas and Alexandra can be contrasted with George V and Queen Mary, who really established the 'public service monarchy' in Britain. I don't think they set out in a cynical fashion to make themselves popular, but they very much recognised that they had a responsibility to the people.

Ann

[edubs31]

Nicholas and Alexandra can be contrasted with George V and Queen Mary, who really established the 'public service monarchy' in Britain. I don't think they set out in a cynical fashion to make themselves popular, but they very much recognised that they had a responsibility to the people.

Ann

True. But do you think they may also have been conscious of Victoria's falling out of favor and the threat to her reign during her years of mourning and public seclusion after Albert's death? Seemed like a very real concern especially given the threat of revolution and the rise of Democracies during their era.

[Kalafrana]

Certainly a factor, but by no means the sole reason.

Regards

Ann

[Jeremiah]

I did not want to start a new topic on my question, and thought it could fit in here.

I've just listened to a lecture by Mark Steinberg from his series "History of Russia: From Peter the Great to Gorbachev" (which BTW I find really good). So, lecture no.19 is titled "Nicholas II, The Last Tsar" -very interesting approach. Anyway, at one point Steinberg quotes Nicholas' following words:

"I never prepare what I'm going to say in audience, but praying to Lord God I then speak what comes into my mind."

He doesn't give the source of it, instead he just says that it's from an interview. Has anyone come accross this statement by Nicholas? Do we know the source? Did Steinberg include it in his book "The Fall of the Romanovs"? I've just ordered it and have not yet been able to see if it's in there.

Thanks.

[PAGE]

I do not respond to Steinberg's message in particular.

My opinion on Nicolas II.

A very great man, an idealistic leader who unfortunately was surrounded by little minds, entangled in the narrowness of the pragmatism and ambitions of his collaborators.

What reassures me is that the critics of Nicolas II who spoke on this topic do not know anything about which they approach.

Nicholas II was surrounded by incompetents (officers generally very bad strategists, pathetic ministers, an extended family full of conspiracy theories, an aristocracy that lived on rumors and gossip).

Russia has never been stronger, rich and I will say "human" than under the reign of Nicholas II.

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing that Nicolas II was weak, anti-Semitic, despotic, cruel, stupid ... without any proof, just because you have to dwell on a whole historiography that takes Witte or Maria Pavlovna elder as the best sources on Nicolas II.

[Helen]

Anyway, at one point Steinberg quotes Nicholas' following words:
"I never prepare what I'm going to say in audience, but praying to Lord God I then speak what comes into my mind."
He doesn't give the source of it, instead he just says that it's from an interview. Has anyone come across this statement by Nicholas? Do we know the source?

One source is "Tsar Nicholas II"  by Major-General A. Elchaninov, page 12,
published by Gilbert's Royal Books in 2005, originally published in 1913:
" 'I never prepare what I say. But I pray to God and then speak what comes into my  mind,' the Tsar has often said. "