Why do some see Nicholas as guilty for being rich?

[Alixz]

My original reason for the thread was to ask why Nicholas should be judged because he could afford to buy expensive clothing and Alexandra could spend money on flowers, etc.

People seemed to think that the way the money was spent showed that Nicholas and Alexandra were "bad people".

However, it is true as some posters have said, that those who do not have wealth are suspicious of those who do, but should those who do not have wealth suddenly become wealthy, they find wealth to be a fine thing.

Could Nicholas have organized the wealth at his disposal in a more "democratic" way?  Perhaps he should have made a greater distinction between his personal wealth and the country's wealth.  His personal wealth was intertwined with the country's wealth because he was an autocrat.  What belonged to the country belonged to him.

Do we ask those in our society to whom we pay exorbitant salaries and those who inherit great wealth to "spread the wealth" around?

Now I know that those in our society are not autocrats and so are not also the government of our country, but right now there is a battle in almost every state in the union over taxing the rich to equalize the burden on the poor.  Up to now, in all cases, these laws have failed to pass.  Of course, the poor and the middle income folks love these intended laws, but the rich (and I think it is understandable from their point of view) hate them.

But then there is this little gem of information.

A woman in Utah just won a big lottery prize of $190,000,000 (that is 190 million) which will be about 80 million after taxes.  Her husband from whom she has been separated for a long time, but is still her husband, is entitled by law to half of that money or 40 million.

Her reaction?  She has taken her children and disappeared.

His reaction?  "At least now I won't have to pay child support."

It would seem to some people that no amount of money is enough to satisfy them.  I can't imagine being able to spend $40 million in my lifetime and these two are picking away at small things.

[TimM]

A woman in Utah just won a big lottery prize of $190,000,000 (that is 190 million) which will be about 80 million after taxes.  Her husband from whom she has been separated for a long time, but is still her husband, is entitled by law to half of that money or 40 million.

Her reaction?  She has taken her children and disappeared.

His reaction?  "At least now I won't have to pay child support."

Hubby seems okay with it all, considering he is legally entitled to half that money.

[Alixz]

He is OK with it, but he is heartless where HIS children are concerned.  Obviously the money means more than the kids.  And he is still a "deadbeat dad".

[TimM]

It seems the children take second place to both of them.  The mother obviously doesn't care about uprooting them from their home and friends.

[RichC]

Did she disappear because she wanted to prevent the husband half of the loot?  Did she take the money with her?  If not, she may have had very good reasons for "disappearing".  Perhaps she was trying to protect the children from threats?

[TimM]

Since she didn't pull her vanishing act until she had won the money, I say she did it because she didn't want hubby to get half of it.

[Alixz]

Since she didn't pull her vanishing act until she had won the money, I say she did it because she didn't want hubby to get half of it.

I would agree.

I also agree that the children come second to both of them.

[grandduchessella]

Back to topic. 

[feodorovna]

A parable in the Bible tells of a "Master" who went away and left each of his servants a sum of money and they all did very different things with it. That story is 2000 years old but the outcome would be exactly the same if it happened today and would have been so when Nicholas was Tsar. Given the number of impoverished people in Russia at that time, giving away half his fortune to them would probably only have made a difference for a little while. I know that conditions for the poor of Russia were appalling, but conditions for the poor of England were shameful, too. The "medicine" in Russia was vodka, in England, gin served the same purpose. We sold babies, we sent small boys up chimneys or down mines, little girls were sold and used for the amusement of gentlemen-today, we'd call them pedophiles. Workers on large estates lived in cottages until they dared to defy, in some small way, their master-they may have tried to get higher wages or start a union, maybe they voted differently from their master-then they would return from a twelve hour day in the fields to find wife, children and their pitiful possessions evicted from their home and they had no choice but to take to the road and sleep under hedges. Was it better to be poor in Russia or England? I can't answer that, just thinking about it fills me with horror.

[Eddie_uk]

But are we judging the past by the standards of today? I wonder what the Victorians would think if they came back & judged our lifestyle! They would be horrified by our crime rates, morals, loss of farm land, loss of community, greed, consumerism etc to name a few!

[Alixz]

I don't think that life has changed much. 

The rich get richer and the poor get children, lyrics from Ain't We Got Fun ?" used in the movie The Great Gatsby with Robert Redford and Sam Waterston 1974.

Also The rich get rich and the poor get laid off.

Nicholas was rich - so what?  The British Royal Family is rich, too.  Didn't the Duchess of Cambridge just pay in excess of $1000 for a day dress?  I couldn't do that and I doubt that many who post here could.

There looks like there will always be a gulf between some sections of society.

[Olga Bernice]

Yes, Alixz, I agree with you . . . and I don't think many people judge Prince William and Princess Kate for being rich or royalty for that matter. You know, I love to read about them - when we go to Wal-Mart I go to the magazines and if I'm lucky, there's something new about them. Maybe in today's society, what we consider "poor" people aren't as poor as in Russia a hundred years ago, so they aren't necessarily . . . against rich people, as some were against Nicholas.

This is just my opinion, and if I am wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me.

[Kalafrana]

In Britain at least, there is a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the rich. People like the Beckhams are at liberty to throw their money around, and  one of the newspapers noted recently with apparent approval that Joan Collins had travelled to America with 16 trunks full of clothes. However, last week I found myself bridling at the Prime Minister being reported as spending £5,800 to rent a villa in Tuscany for a fortnight. OK, he's spending his own money (unlike Blair, whose pursuit of freebies was notorious), but this is a bit much in time of recession, when most of us are having to rein in spending on non-essentials.

Ann

[Alixz]

When writers use the fact that Nicholas could buy a pair of boots the cost of which would feed an entire family for years in Russia, they are (to me) saying that it was wrong to be rich.  Wrong to buy what Nicholas could afford.  He should have bought cheaper boots or he should have given up his life style because his people couldn't live in the same monetary class.

Today, there is no change.   Leaders of all countries live in styles that none of the rest of us could afford.

Here in the US (and probably elsewhere) we worship those with money whether is was earned of inherited.

In fact, I was jut watching the news and heard that some football player is going to earn 6 plus million dollars as a salary in one year!  That seems to be justified by some, personally I think that our priorities are upside down.  We pay huge amounts to those who "play" for a living and small amounts to those who work very hard for a living.

But Nicholas II knew no other style of life.  He was brought up in wealth and had a life style he was not only born to but accustomed to.  Just as the Queen and her family live in comfort and wealth.

So it always bothered me when Nicholas II is blamed for "ignoring" the plight of his subjects by buying a good pair of boots.  It was not a crime for him to live his life style.

[feodorovna]

When writers use the fact that Nicholas could buy a pair of boots the cost of which would feed an entire family for years in Russia, they are (to me) saying that it was wrong to be rich.  Wrong to buy what Nicholas could afford.  He should have bought cheaper boots or he should have given up his life style because his people couldn't live in the same monetary class.

Today, there is no change.   Leaders of all countries live in styles that none of the rest of us could afford.

Here in the US (and probably elsewhere) we worship those with money whether is was earned of inherited.

In fact, I was jut watching the news and heard that some football player is going to earn 6 plus million dollars as a salary in one year!  That seems to be justified by some, personally I think that our priorities are upside down.  We pay huge amounts to those who "play" for a living and small amounts to those who work very hard for a living.

But Nicholas II knew no other style of life.  He was brought up in wealth and had a life style he was not only born to but accustomed to.  Just as the Queen and her family live in comfort and wealth.

So it always bothered me when Nicholas II is blamed for "ignoring" the plight of his subjects by buying a good pair of boots.  It was not a crime for him to live his life style.

I concur fully with all you say,but I also have a couple of questions-was Russia better of living under the cruelty of Stalin than under Nicholas, who dispite his ineptitude,tried to do what he thought was best for his country? Also, whilst I do appreciate that much of the revolution was about NEED, how much of it was about GREED?