Theory on Alexandra's children

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Tania, my dear, I'm not getting personal.  You're the only one getting personal.

All I have said is that some people are stating opinions as fact, and making generalisations as if everyone agrees with them. 

This is not about preventing people from saying what they want or believing what they want.  I haven't said anything about stopping anyone from writing their opinions.

All I'm pointing out here is that subjective beliefs are being put across as objective facts.  'The Romanovs are martyrs', 'The Romanovs were beautiful', etc, are not THE TRUTH, period, and I am fed up of reading such phrases.  They are the truth to some people, and that's fantastic for them and I encourage them to continue thinking that way if that's what they want to do.  But I just think we need to be careful to phrase our opinions AS OPINIONS, otherwise some people might be led into thinking that someone's opinion is the truth and so get led down the wrong path.

For example, when I first started coming on this forum and read people's comments on the Romanovs being martyrs, I thought they had actually died literally as martyrs- for their religion.  I thought their death had something to do with religious persecution.  This is because people didn't differentiate their personal beliefs from actual facts.  It is important to make a distinction.

I have NO PROBLEM with people believing in these things.  I just think we need to be more careful about how we phrase our beliefs, as a lot of beginners come on this forum and might mistake someone's opinion as being a verified fact.  That is all. Don't take it personally, Tania, because it's not meant to be and I have been careful not to make it so.

Rachel
xx

[Romanov_fan]

Well, whenever I read anybody's posts I usually take it as their opinion, I don't think that is the truth  for sure, because who knows what that is? I don't need to have someone state that that is their opinion. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. History can be very subjective, or very objective, objective being in the realm of facts, and sbjective being more in the realm of people. I don't think someone can just say history is one thing or another, because honestly, who knows? When people write books, that other people take with authority, some of that in their book is their own personal opinions, even it is taken on authority by people. I agree with some, others not so much, but I just let people say as they feel, and that's harmless. But, let's get back to Alexandra and her children, or something to do with that...

[Tania]

Ra-Ra,

First I am as plain as the bump on a fly's face....Naturally when i respond to a thread, i am writing imho ! Who else would I being respond on whose behalf. IMHO is always my'n nobody elses. That's why all this back and forth issues of statement that I am responding on behalf of someone else is so stupid, really. Get a grip.  Subjective belief's, objective facts, yes, yes, and so on.
At my old age, you think i am not cognizant of all of this. Get a grip and then some !

People will, can, and continue to believe what they will, despite any of your preaching, or anyone else's on this forum, etc.

Again, I am not nor have I veiled anything, so stop your insinuations, and I won't take it personally 
I am not an authority on anything on this forum, neither is anyone else here to date. Soooooo, let's get back to the topic at hand and trying to control what you all think you should control. Leave it up to the moderator to control what is needed to be looked after. You believe what you want, and I and others will continue to believe what we wish till we make the decision to do otherwise.
Thank you !  and that is my opinion....

Tatiana+

[Louis_Charles]

Now don't you feel small, Rachel?

 

[Tania]

As I said, earlier I love you also Louis Charles, and I hope you have a wonderful day !

Tatiana+

[Romanov_fan]

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?

Yes, it was only natural for them to be proud of their family in a private way, and also in a public way. Akexei was the heir, and they were obviously proud of him in many ways. Otma were were beautiful girls with lovely personalities( in my opinion), and they had every right to be proud of them as well. I think Alexandra was private, and maybe she never thought out the dynamics of how the family should be viewed in public. But, the majority of the photos were never meant to be published, as indeed they were private, and Nicholas and Alexandra were quite private people, neither reallly had a mentality of using their children's photos for public relations, etc.If that happened, it was more an after note than the intention.

[lori_c]

Now don't you feel small, Rachel?

 

Amen.

[lori_c]

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?

Yes, it was only natural for them to be proud of their family in a private way, and also in a public way. Akexei was the heir, and they were obviously proud of him in many ways. Otma were were beautiful girls with lovely personalities( in my opinion), and they had every right to be proud of them as well. I think Alexandra was private, and maybe she never thought out the dynamics of how the family should be viewed in public. But, the majority of the photos were never meant to be published, as indeed they were private, and Nicholas and Alexandra were quite private people, neither reallly had a mentality of using their children's photos for public relations, etc.If that happened, it was more an after note than the intention.

I had never thought of the photos of the children as propaganda either.  But I thought it was interesting to note that it was an opinion brought out in King and Wilsons TFOTR that the Tsar was ahead of his time in using photography of his family life to boost his image.  It's not MY opinion. But it was an interesting thought that the Tsar would have intended it to be so.  Especially as you pointed out, they guarded their privacy fiercly.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

A bump on a fly's face is plain for all to see? 

I fail to see why such offence is taken at my really quite simple point.  I don't object to opinions- practically everything I write is an opinion.  I'd be objecting to what I personally write if that were the case.  No, what I object to is people passing off their opinions as if it's a general fact everyone believes in.  Like this thread- everyone was saying how beautiful the Romanovs were, fact, without thinking about the flip side- not everyone thinks so, and perhaps there are other reasons why people like to read about the Romanovs other than aesthetics.

I also fail to see why you're reprimanding me for making 'insinuations' about you 'veiling' things- show me where I've said this, and maybe I'll understand what you're talking about.  However, I think you've mistaken me for another poster.  I have never attacked you for anything. 

Rachel
xx

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

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?

Yes, it was only natural for them to be proud of their family in a private way, and also in a public way. Akexei was the heir, and they were obviously proud of him in many ways. Otma were were beautiful girls with lovely personalities( in my opinion), and they had every right to be proud of them as well. I think Alexandra was private, and maybe she never thought out the dynamics of how the family should be viewed in public. But, the majority of the photos were never meant to be published, as indeed they were private, and Nicholas and Alexandra were quite private people, neither reallly had a mentality of using their children's photos for public relations, etc.If that happened, it was more an after note than the intention.

I had never thought of the photos of the children as propaganda either.  But I thought it was interesting to note that it was an opinion brought out in King and Wilsons TFOTR that the Tsar was ahead of his time in using photography of his family life to boost his image.  It's not MY opinion. But it was an interesting thought that the Tsar would have intended it to be so.  Especially as you pointed out, they guarded their privacy fiercly.

Well obviously the photographs were propaganda; this is not opinion, it's fact. The Tsar issued photographs of himself with his family because it showed him as a family man.  The Tsar was 'father' of his people, and this was a role he wanted to emphasise.  All monarchs do it- it humanises them, makes them more accessible, and makes them more popular.  People can see that the Tsar is a family man just like them, and that makes them like him all the more.  It was lucky for Nicholas that his family was photogenic, otherwise I'm sure it wouldn't have been such an effective tool.

Rachel
xx

[Romanov_fan]

The Tsar was ahead of his time in using the photos correct, that was unusual then. But it doesn't mean the private photos were ever intended in this way, or that we should regard them as so. The public/formal ones were issued for public consumption, but had they not issued photos that would have been surprising, etc. The Romanovs were photogenic, but it always helps when people in public life are, as many people judge on looks, although truthfully, that has little to do with who people are.

[Tania]

Oh for Heaven's sake, the Tsar was ahead of his time, yes he was! imho, for families eveywhere, and for individuals as well, I think it helped them to address the unity of family even more, by his taking this leadership role. Yes, indeed, the public ate it up, they surely did ! Look how many more pictures people took, and of the value it meant to each family and members of their family and the public at large. imho, they were superbly photogenic ! No humor intended  Gads Lori_C, you got it right on target, he propogandized his family. Hooray ! so what ?....now what ....

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Oh yes, the private photos shouldn't be viewed in that way, Grace, you're perfectly right.

The public ones, though, should be viewed as propaganda because that is what they were, undoubtedly- the Tsar carefully orchestrated how he wanted himself and his family to be viewed to the public.  In the shots of the family together, they are largely informally dressed and standing/sitting in a manner that shows their closeness.  The Tsar is usually, if not always, at the centre- the core of his family, the 'father figure' that he is both literally for his family, and figuratively for his people.  The photos express a familial love and a sense of being regal and elegant but also down to earth- they are the rulers of Russia, but they're also not so dissimilar from their people.  They are accessible to their people, but they are also separated by their rank; a picture tells a thousand words, after all.

The private photographs were not meant for public consumption, no, and this is evident in them.  They are family snapshots, unposed, etc, ones we all have at home.  We can't really read any propagandist intentions into them, because if it were not for their untimely deaths, I am sure they would not have been published in their entirety as they have been.  I'm sure Nicholas, Alexandra and their children would have been mortified to think that so many people can see their photos now! I know I would be!

Rachel
xx

[Romanov_fan]

Oh yes, the private photos shouldn't be viewed in that way, Grace, you're perfectly right.

The public ones, though, should be viewed as propaganda because that is what they were, undoubtedly- the Tsar carefully orchestrated how he wanted himself and his family to be viewed to the public.  In the shots of the family together, they are largely informally dressed and standing/sitting in a manner that shows their closeness.  The Tsar is usually, if not always, at the centre- the core of his family, the 'father figure' that he is both literally for his family, and figuratively for his people.  The photos express a familial love and a sense of being regal and elegant but also down to earth- they are the rulers of Russia, but they're also not so dissimilar from their people.  They are accessible to their people, but they are also separated by their rank; a picture tells a thousand words, after all.

The private photographs were not meant for public consumption, no, and this is evident in them.  They are family snapshots, unposed, etc, ones we all have at home.  We can't really read any propagandist intentions into them, because if it were not for their untimely deaths, I am sure they would not have been published in their entirety as they have been.  I'm sure Nicholas, Alexandra and their children would have been mortified to think that so many people can see their photos now! I know I would be!

Rachel
xx

I agree with how you describe the photos, yes, if not some of your interpretations. I just thought that one post, refered to above was instructive in saying how there was a diference between personal and private photos, because it sometimes seemed that people were confusing the two. We most likely, today, have images of the Romanovs familiar to us, and these are the private photos for the most part...

[Grace]

I have to agree with Rachel here.

The last Romanovs are not "beautiful, spiritual martyrs" to everyone.  Simple as that.  I believe it is personal opinion.