Theory on Alexandra's children

[RichC]

No, there wouldn't be, Tsarfan, it's as simple as that. 

There would be interest from serious historians (as on this site) of course, on the reign of Nicholas and Alexandra, what happened up to and on the night of July 16, 1918, and to the whereabouts of the remains of the IF etc. but otherwise, certainly the zillion threads here and on other boards on "OTMA" and Alexis wouldn't exist.  Nor, I imagine, would the number of "family albums" be around either.

I'm not sure it's that simple.

Isn't there a strong fascination with the life and family of Queen Victoria?  That was a kennel club if I ever saw one, but the fascination remains.

[Romanov_fan]

No, there wouldn't be, Tsarfan, it's as simple as that. 

There would be interest from serious historians (as on this site) of course, on the reign of Nicholas and Alexandra, what happened up to and on the night of July 16, 1918, and to the whereabouts of the remains of the IF etc. but otherwise, certainly the zillion threads here and on other boards on "OTMA" and Alexis wouldn't exist.  Nor, I imagine, would the number of "family albums" be around either.

Well, it is interesting to learn that this study was somewhat scientific, at least. I must agree though, that beauty is a subjective thing that changes depending on different cultures and eras, and it's hard to define. While beauty can be defined as something visually pleasing, it can also change quite a bit from one generation to the other, or culture. That's a great point. Anyway, I think there are other reasons we are interested in the last Romanovs than simply looks. Sure, they were a good looking family, but they also had other elements that make their story interesting, including the whole background of it.  The background of Imperial Russia was so interesting, and it's true that Queen Victoria's family wasn't very goodlooking, and people are interested in them, and it's more about the all the events that happened in her family, and the personalities involved than looks. That has something to do with why we are so interested in the last Romanovs too.

[Grace]

I'm not sure it's that simple.

Isn't there a strong fascination with the life and family of Queen Victoria?  That was a kennel club if I ever saw one, but the fascination remains.

RichC -- where's this "kennel club" I'm missing out on?    I don't see any threads about about Queen Victoria's family here (I presume you mean children/grandchildren) with such titles as "did they get their hair cut?", "chapped lips", "Happy 149th Birthday, Beatrice" etc.

I agree that there is a strong fascination with the life and family of QV but I think this doesn't in the main attract the legion of fans (particularly teenagers) the IF has.  I think this relates directly to the fact that the Grand Duchesses were all pretty and the Tsarevich was a handsome young boy.  The fact that they lived in a more innocent age than we do is an added attraction also, I would say. 

[Georgiy]

I think he means that QV's family wasn't good looking.

[RichC]

I'm not sure it's that simple.

Isn't there a strong fascination with the life and family of Queen Victoria?  That was a kennel club if I ever saw one, but the fascination remains.

RichC -- where's this "kennel club" I'm missing out on?    I don't see any threads about about Queen Victoria's family here (I presume you mean children/grandchildren) with such titles as "did they get their hair cut?", "chapped lips", "Happy 149th Birthday, Beatrice" etc.

I agree that there is a strong fascination with the life and family of QV but I think this doesn't in the main attract the legion of fans (particularly teenagers) the IF has.  I think this relates directly to the fact that the Grand Duchesses were all pretty and the Tsarevich was a handsome young boy.  The fact that they lived in a more innocent age than we do is an added attraction also, I would say. 

Regarding the continued popularity of Queen Victoria and her family, I was talking in a more general sense than just what is on this particular website. 

I do not deny that the last imperial family was good looking.  I don't mind admitting that one of the first things that sparked my interest (as a child) was learning that they lived in a setting of unparalleled luxury coupled with supreme power.  Then -- all that power and all that luxury was taken away, and they were all murdered.  That's a very compelling story.

[Tsarfan]

I was being a bit snide when I first asked what role their looks played in the fascination with all things Romanov . . . but only a bit.

I think there are three general reasons for a heightened interest in Nicholas II's reign:

• Interest in Russian history and how and why the monarchical period ended
• Interest in the arts, culture, and architecture of the imperial era and why it all disappeared

• Interest in the persons and domestic life of Nicholas and his family

Some posters on this forum fall predominantly into only one of these three categories.  More fall into a combination of two categories (generally a combination of the 1st and 2nd or the 2nd and 3rd).  And a few spread their time rather evenly across all three.

But what I find unique is how many people fall predominantly into the third category -- and how obsessive the interest is.  How tall was Nicholas?  Who made Alexandra's dresses?  How did the girls wear their hair?  Did they paint their nails?  Did Alexandra and Olga argue?  What colors were the bedrooms?  Who fed the dogs?  How deep was Nicholas' bathtub?  How many uniforms did he have?  What time did they get up, eat, and go to bed?  By which door did they enter their palace?  How many ikons did Alexandra have?  Were they attached to a wall or hung on a curtain?

I am not aware of anything remotely as extreme when it comes to other royals.  And there have been some whose lives and personalities were far more complex and interesting that Nicholas and his family:  Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, Frederick the Great.

Consider the tabloid coverage of the British royals.  How much press did beautiful Diana get relative to plain Charles, even though Charles is more politically relevant?  How much press does bonnie Prince William get relative to his father?

Looks have a lot to do with the tabloid interest -- and that's what much of this is -- in the last Romanovs.

Few people lose sight of the psychological line between themselves and Victoria's descendents.  I'm not so sure that's the case with Nicky, Alix, and those adorable kids.

[Romanov_fan]

Well, I agree that the three reasons you stated do have much to do with interest in the Imperial Family. But, I think there are more reasons than just liking the Romanovs than the fact they were a glamourous family, which they were. I think their tragic death, and a sense of unfinished lives, or tragedy hangs across their story, and everyone is interested in the things that go wrong, not the things that go right. Perfect things or people are boring. As well, otma and Alexei died young, and this makes it easier for the young to maybe relate to them, as they didn't get the chance to grow up, unlike pretty much any other royals. They are forever young, and more relatable. In short, the whole story of the end of Imperial Russia was interesting, and the family who played such a part were good looking, but also vastly more than that as well.

[helenazar]

In a way, this is almost like Hollywood celebrities dying early tragic deaths. Would Marilyn Monroe and James Dean have had the same staying power if they lived until they were 80, and died of old age - all washed up? Probably not... But because they died young, at the height of their careers and beauty, tragic untimely deaths - they became legends. This type of phenomenon could be partially responsible for the last of the Romanovs.

[Romanov_fan]

That's what I have always said, and I agree with you. I think more than physical beauty, which they had, and which does appeal, that it was their story that has so enshrined them in popular imagination. Their story was one of Love, Power and Tragedy, and all those things interest people, because physical beauty without some other drama is boring to most. I find it so anyway, but of course good looks do enhance stories that would be interesting anyway. But I feel that we are interested in them for factors apart from physical beauty, etc, because certainly Queen Victoria's family interests many people, and they weren't that good looking. I think it's the story there that grabs people, I mean it isn't looks.

[Romanov_fan]

No, they don't. But just saying that we like the last Romanovs for their looks is to oversimplify-there was so much more there, than just looks. They weren't like the celebrities of today, who are sometimes just empty underneath all their looks, the Romanovs controlled countries and destinies, it wasn't a constitional monarchy, they were of real importance. They had much more than just the old photos that enchant us now, and they were much more than that.

[lori_c]

That is interesting. Alexandra was very lovely, and so were her daughters. I think otma defintely got some looks from their father's side, but that their beauty came from their mother's side. They would not have been so stunning otherwise, which is aptly proved if you look at pictures of the sisters of Nicholas II. Romanov women were not that beautiful. But, I don't think the fact of Alexandra being beautiful had much to with her offspring's being girls, although it had much to do with their beauty.

I actually think that Nicholas' sisters look like their mother. GD Xenia looks a LOT like her.  I definitely think that the children were a mix.  Especially since N and A were related.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, I agree that Xzenia looked much like her mother, she had the same face, and same build. That isn't unpretty, as obviously Marie Feodorovna was a beauty, and Xzenia was not that bad looking, some would have said she was beautiful. But, I think the children of Nicholas and Alexandra were in a whole new category of beauty, which was one they certainly got from both sides of the family, but more through Alexandra somehow, I think. But Irina and Tatiana looked much alike, and they were cousins on Nicholas's side, so obviously, there were looks from there.

[lori_c]

No, there wouldn't be, Tsarfan, it's as simple as that. 

There would be interest from serious historians (as on this site) of course, on the reign of Nicholas and Alexandra, what happened up to and on the night of July 16, 1918, and to the whereabouts of the remains of the IF etc. but otherwise, certainly the zillion threads here and on other boards on "OTMA" and Alexis wouldn't exist.  Nor, I imagine, would the number of "family albums" be around either.

Well, it is interesting to learn that this study was somewhat scientific, at least. I must agree though, that beauty is a subjective thing that changes depending on different cultures and eras, and it's hard to define. While beauty can be defined as something visually pleasing, it can also change quite a bit from one generation to the other, or culture. That's a great point. Anyway, I think there are other reasons we are interested in the last Romanovs than simply looks. Sure, they were a good looking family, but they also had other elements that make their story interesting, including the whole background of it.  The background of Imperial Russia was so interesting, and it's true that Queen Victoria's family wasn't very goodlooking, and people are interested in them, and it's more about the all the events that happened in her family, and the personalities involved than looks. That has something to do with why we are so interested in the last Romanovs too.

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.  It definitely didn't hurt his image to see him as a family man and his beautiful children with their mother surrounding him or with him and The Tsareavitch looking healthy perhaps to stem the rumors about something being wrong with Alexei - his hemophilia being a closely guarded secret.  The point being  The Tsar didn't shy away from showing off his beautiful family even if it was for his own gain. So in part, he is responsible for their enduring popularity and the plethora of family albums and photographs and even home movies.

[Tania]

Dear Lori,

I think the Tsar had reason to be proud of his beautiful family. Just look at their beautiful faces. Each face continues to speak. I am glad that their beautiful faces shine for us today from those photographs of yesterday. The Tsar was a family man and I think for many around the globe, he helped to promote being together as a family. He and his family certainly promoted taking family pictures, and pictures on everything. One might say they almost owned stock in Kodak.

Tatiana+

[Tsarfan]

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.

While modern photography put a useful tool in Nicholas' hands, he was not the first monarch to use his family for propagandistic purposes.

The use of public imagery to engender support for a controversial king goes back at least to ancient Egypt.  Hatshepsut, after using her position as regent to seize the throne, had herself portrayed all over the empire as a male pharoah wearing a ceremonial beard.  When Ahkenaten decided to take on the established priesthood and impose his new monotheistic religion on Egypt, he mounted a massive campaign of newly-realistic visual portrayals of his chief wife and his family in domestic settings such as had never before been depicted in royal Egyptian art.

In more modern times, Marie Antoinette had suffered greatly under the public perception of a spendthrift gadfly of a queen who could not produce an heir.  When she finally bore a son, the kingdom was blanketed with a series of portraits of her, modestly dressed and surrounded by her young family.  One of the most famous of them was rendered as a tapestry which hung in Alexandra's reception room at the Alexander Palace.

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.