Theory on Alexandra's children

[Grace]

Well, every parent is proud of their family, aren't they?

If the Tsar didn't shy away from showing off his "beautiful" family, that was no doubt a good thing because, according to Robert Massie, his wife saw no reason at all why the public should see the family or even take an interest in them.  Yet, she still expected the devotion of the people?

Surely the majority of the photographs we see of this family today would not have been meant for publication?

[lori_c]

Another interesting point is brough up in King and Wilson's The Fate of the Romanov's in which they state that the Tsar was ahead of his time in allowing his family to be so openly photographed and the public allowed to view what was virtually their private refuge.  In a world without television, he clearly understood the dramatic effect his beautiful family would have on the way he was perceived as Tsar.

Nicholas played this game well.  But he was not the first to play it.

And it did not always work.  Hatshepsut was very likely removed in a coup.  Ahkenaten's death is more mysterious, but he and his wife disappeared from the scene just a few years after they launched their new religion.  Most of the imagery of him and his family was eradicated or defaced.  (We only know of some of these images because the stones on which they were carved were used soon after his demise as filler stone in new construction to honor the gods he had deposed.)  We all know what happened to Marie Antoinette and her family.  Ditto for Nicholas and his.

Indeed.  A good point.  But on the point of the physical beauty of the Tsar's children and it's relevance to their historical appeal I thought it was noteworthy that not only were looks of his family pleasing they were also a visual tool that helped and as you point out sometimes hindered his imagery.  But mostly as Tania said, the children meant the world to their parents but the Tsar wanted the country to see that he was a father, a husband as well as a leader.  He and his father were among the first Tsars not to have the reputation of philandering.  Alexander III was noted for being a family man.  And so with his son.  Nicholas wanted his country to see this firsthand.

And you are right Tatiana, I think they did own stock in Kodak!

[Tania]

As an interesting side note Lori_C, I think because as you pointed out, that family mattered so much to the Tsar, that it took hold with many families throughout Russin in wanting to perserve their families portraits for posterity as well. I think that it helped to foster that wonderful family togetherness, and reinforce the point to families, not to philander. So you are right it was indeed a family trait in regards to support the family theme, and I don't think it was at all political. They were a proud family membership, and privately were involved in taking many pictures, and kept up family scrapbooks. I am delighted that these wonderful and beautiful photographs are still in existence. They were a beautiful family !

Tatiana+

[Romanov_fan]

It sometimes used in some books, as an indication of politics that the tsar used his family in the way that he did with pictures. But, they did take many private pictures as well, and it was not just for public consumption. Anyone knows that they loved to photograph each other in private, and all knew much about photography, etc. I don't think the majority of photos were meant for publication, at all. I think it's just being overly political to say anything about the fact these photos were used for political purposes. Sure, there were official photos, but mostly they were private. I think it's overanalyzying things to say they were political. I know much about Ancient Egypt, and images were used for political purposes there, but that doesn't always translate into other countries, other cultures. Images in Ancient Egypt were sometimes religious in use as well. Of course the images were useful, but I see it mostly as  a sidenote. Perhaps the private images of the family today influence the way we think of them, more than official photos ever influenced what people thought of them in their lifetime.

[Jacy]

Thats interesting because i ve always thought beuatiful children had like parents,but it depends on genes as well.I mean ive seen some lovely lookibg babies,and their parents are quite plain.

[Tania]

Hi Jacy,

Sorry for many countless people, beautiful children are beautiful children. Understandably, we are addressing the Imperial children, not anyone outside this thread. But yes, some parents may look plain, and have beautiful children, but that's again other families.
This particular and illustrious family, were all beautiful. Their pictures speak on that without anything to be added.

Tatiana+

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Hi Jacy,

Sorry for many countless people, beautiful children are beautiful children. Understandably, we are addressing the Imperial children, not anyone outside this thread. But yes, some parents may look plain, and have beautiful children, but that's again other families.
This particular and illustrious family, were all beautiful. Their pictures speak on that without anything to be added.

Tatiana+

This is your opinion, Tania, not fact.
To YOU ALL of the Romanovs were beautiful aesthetically. This is not true for everyone.  Beauty is highly subjective.  Part of the appeal of the Romanovs is in their general lack of ugliness, but also because they died young and took lots of photos of themselves in informal situations.  Personally I don't see the Romanovs as an outstandingly beautiful family. They were not unattractive as a whole, and in comparison to other royal families of the time they stood out as being attractive, but let's not go overboard here and make subjective statements about their looks and pass them off as fact. They were attractive, yes, but beautiful? That's a very strong word and up to the individual to decide.

Rachel
xx

[Tsarfan]

Please, Ra-Ra . . .

There's a worship service going on here.  One does not talk in church.

Thank you.

[Romanov_fan]

I think they were a beautiful family, for that era. In this day and age, beauty might be considered differently, and they might not be regarded as so good looking. But, according to the mores of looks in that era, they were beautiful. I think that's one reason why they are admired today, and more likely appeal, but it is not just about looks-it is more their whole story. It's funny, some say they are appreciated today because they were good looking, and others say beauty is subjective, which is true.I don't think we have to worship them, but being overly critical is bad too.

[lori_c]

As an interesting side note Lori_C, I think because as you pointed out, that family mattered so much to the Tsar, that it took hold with many families throughout Russin in wanting to perserve their families portraits for posterity as well. I think that it helped to foster that wonderful family togetherness, and reinforce the point to families, not to philander. So you are right it was indeed a family trait in regards to support the family theme, and I don't think it was at all political. They were a proud family membership, and privately were involved in taking many pictures, and kept up family scrapbooks. I am delighted that these wonderful and beautiful photographs are still in existence. They were a beautiful family !

Tatiana+

Absolutely!  One of the things the family as a whole were very adept at was photography.  We are very lucky, I feel, that we have such a rich documentation of their private as well as public life together. I agree that some may not have been meant for public view at the time but it does certainly support our views of the family today.  Not just their physical traits, but as you pointed out, the family theme  and an almost spiritual quality that shines out of the photographs which simply adds to whatever it is that is so magnetic about their story that draws Romanov followers like us together on this Forum.  And I think they were a beautiful family as well.  For their story to transcend time and cultures I believe this beauty was more than just "lack of ugliness" i feel these pictures show this very well.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, we do know much about their private life from the photographs they took, and it does help us understand their family life better. I think that these photos were not taken with any political purposes in mind, they were merely private family photos that they may not have realized would be so public almost a century later, after they were taken. It is true that their beauty shines out of it, but I agree with what the other posters have said, it was the family quality as well. They were not being political, but just personal, however some people want to read into it.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Tsarfan, you make me laugh! 

It's true, though- I feel like I'm in a church sometimes on this forum.

I KNOW some people are Orthodox and to them, the Romanovs ARE Saints, but I find it a bit much that generalised comments such as 'they were beautiful', 'their spirituality shines through', etc, are churned out repeatedly as though they are facts and everyone agrees with them.  Not everyone on this forum is Orthodox and shares that view.

They are not beautiful, saintly martyrs to everyone, and so saying that this is what they were FACT is not scholarly and it is not necessarily true to everyone.  If that's your religious belief, then fair enough, but there's no need to preach it to everyone.  I'm a Christian myself but I don't let that colour my historical assessments of personages I never even knew.  We must be careful to be OBJECTIVE and not SUBJECTIVE.  That's all I'm saying.  I have no problem with people discussing their religion or sharing their views in the light of their religion, but I DO have a problem with people stating religiously inspired beliefs as facts. 

Yes, to you, Imperial Angel and lori and Tania, they were beautiful.  Saying this is something that's 'undeniable' is again, a subjective statement, however.  To me, they were not all aesthetically beautiful, so it can't be a fact that they were, can it? Beauty is not what makes them interesting to me.  I need something more than physical attractiveness to interest me in a person.  Suggesting that the main reason why the Romanovs are still studied today is because they were attractive undermines the wealth of actual scholarly work that has been produced about them.  I think there are some people, shocking as it may seem, who look a little *deeper* than that.

Rachel
xx

[Romanov_fan]

Well, I have said that I think that they were attractive, by some standards at least, but that that is not the main reason that people are interested in them. That's just another factor, another sidenote of everything. They were much deeper than any level of physical attractivness, and I at least look deeper than that, and I think there others who do as well. Of course, everybody has their own opinion, but I think it's not wrong to see the spirituality in the Romanovs, and and their beauty, and that doesn't preclude, if you will, any serious academic interest in them...

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

No, it's not wrong to see beauty or spirituality in the Romanovs, Grace.  You're missing my point.

It's fine for people to think that way- but it's NOT fine for them to say 'The Romanovs were beautiful people, they were martyrs, they were such wonderful, spiritual Christians,' etc, FACT, without making it clear that is their opinion and their opinion ONLY.

'In my opinion, the Romanovs were beautiful, and they were good Christians, which makes them appeal to me more', would be a more accurate way of phrasing such a sentence.  Personal belief is not fact, and should not be phrased as such.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I think it's important to make the distinction between fact and opinion.  It annoys me to read 'Well, obviously everyone is interested in them because they were beautiful and martyrs to their faith', because it's simply not true in everyone's eyes.  Subjective generalisations have no place in historical discussions.

Rachel
xx

[Tania]

Each member or reader, is allowed and may feel what he/she/they wish, nobody is expecting for anyone to feel for another. That's fact !!!!
Each member or reader may with consideration objectively one hopes, to read, and respond as they wish without someone else telling them how or what they should post, feel or think. We live and are in a free society.  This Forum is open to all globally, not just for a few !

No matter if we are of any faith, we all and to each our own, have what we feel are and give of added strengths to our persons, these are known or unknown entities. Some are beautiful people, some are just down right deplorable. Some personas shine through no matter what or who they are, because they just do. If one gravitates toward what is spiritual so be it, so what ? Nothing wrong with that. If you don't, then you don't. But, regardless, everyone should be able to have their say without being knocked out because someone does not like to hear what they have to say, even though it may have been stated before. Another thing, we are free to pick or not pick threads we wish to read and or respond to. We all do just that, so let's not find a problem there, where there is none. A number of you are just starting your education and that's great that you love to enter into discussions. These discussions however are not meant to be controlled, nor do they have any statement aforehand that one has to abide by your individual likes, dislikes, etc. Agree to disagree, plain and simple !

Who asked anyone to censor what is here, when one only states one's viewpoint? I see no job openings, nor needed statement of Censor wanted.
These are just statements, personal statements, with no one offering preaching to anyone! Of course beauty is to the eye of the beholder, and beauty is more than just what one sees, but a whole variety of collective things together.

You make me laugh, indeed ! Again, stick to what you want to offer, and it is heard. Allow others to offer their thoughts without being so sensitive.
Stop looking to being so picky on what you continue to want to pick on. If you don't like what others have to say, and you can see by now, that there are more than just myself who think on our own, who will continue to post, then allow it. By the same token you obviously continue to think and say what it is that you wish, unabashed. So be it.

Bottom line is, we are part of a global understanding to like, love, and pursue what it is without being injurious or thoughtless to others. Nobody is keeping you from entering into what you wish, as long as you don't get personal. When you do, then it is far from being scholarly. You can't have it both ways, or all the way. Don't get personal, period, or haven't you been reading the moderator's request ?

Tatiana+