The extent of Alexandra's responsibility for the fate of the dynasty

[Iluvbertie]

I don't blame Alexandra - she was a sympton but not the cause.

I blame the reactionary Tsars that preceeded Alexander II and then even more reactionary Alexander III who rather than allow the people some say crushed the life out of them but gave rise to the extremist views that eventually toppled Nicholas.

Nicholas inherited a system that was broken and when given a chance to fix it did too little too late and even then took back what little he did give. He was badly raised and badly advised but in the end he made the decisions and so he, and his family, perished.

To me you have to ask - would this same situation have occurred if Nicholas had married someone different and I think it would - would it have ended differently - maybe - if the wife had been a visionary who could guide Nicholas down a path that was alien to his family and his upbringing. Was there such a princess around in the 1890s like a Vicky (The Princess Royal) in the 1850s - I don't think so.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't believe it would necessarily have happened if Nicholas had married someone else. He could have married a woman more intune with the Russian people and the need for change. Also another wife wouldn't have isolated him so much from those around him who were trying to help them.

 

[Tsaritsa]

It is possible that Alexandra suffered from low level depression most of her life, she certainly seems to have been pessimistic by nature, not surprising given her life experiences. Living with such a personality can have such a knock on effect that the partner in the union also becomes a pessimist which mars the ability to make rational decisions.

 

[AristoCat]

Exactly; Alexandra also egged her husband on to retain the autocracy, to protect Rasputin who was helping their son, but bringing the RF into disrepute. Alexandra was a part of it and if she wasn't going to be part of 'society,' the least she could have done was reach out to the Russian people. If she had told the public the truth about the disease of her son, then I am sure that they would have eagerly sought to support her, at least and they would have worked to find healers who could help, which would have lessened the toxic influence that Rasputin had.

It was her job to end up being part of the nation and ensuring that her daughters were too. It was her JOB to keep a busy social life and ensure that her husband had a social life as well as a work life. She was brought up in a society that assigned women that role and during her tenure as Regent running the government, the country fell further into the abyss and she was the one running things, along with Rasputin. She had no clue of public affairs since she was never out in public. She was out of touch and she ended up making things harder on her husband.

Surely if she had told the truth about the condition of Alexei, Russians would have completely understood, society would have been able to work at finding the finest scientists, and doctors and it would have relieved Alexandra of the sole responsibility for making choices regarding her son's situation. The nation could have very well come together under the Romanovs for that very reason. If she showed up tight lipped and upset, they wouldn't have viewed her as cold or disliking Russians, they would have known and understood.

A huge part of Nicholas refusing to give up his autocratic powers was because Alexandra knew that a newly empowered Duma would have removed Rasputin away from the sphere of the Imperial Family, mainly because the Duma would never have understood why Rasputin was needed. Since Alexandra insisted on secrecy, well, go figure, the Duma never understood the need for Rasputin. Nicholas was headed towards becoming a constitutional monarch, but his wife was a huge part in impeding that progress. I think Nicholas would have LOVED to be a constitutional monarch, signing papers, dickering with the Prime Minister, and also making ceremonial appearances. It would have enabled him to be a moral voice and at hte same time, the burden of government would have shifted to an elected body of people.

He would have been free to pursue his hobbies guilt free and then enjoyed more of a family life and a social one as well.

blame the reactionary Tsars that preceeded Alexander II and then even more reactionary Alexander III who rather than allow the people some say crushed the life out of them but gave rise to the extremist views that eventually toppled Nicholas.

Well, Nicholas' father witnessed the death of his father and all the Romanovs were targets by the Russian version of the IRA, so there was a legitimate reason for fear. But at hte time of his accession, things were in fact getting better and there was a chance that Nicholas could have agreed to work with the government to make things easier on the Russian people.

 

[Cory]

I suppose Empress Alexandra had never really known the russian society.

 

[AristoCat]

No, she didn't.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

To me you have to ask - would this same situation have occurred if Nicholas had married someone different and I think it would - would it have ended differently - maybe - if the wife had been a visionary who could guide Nicholas down a path that was alien to his family and his upbringing. Was there such a princess around in the 1890s like a Vicky (The Princess Royal) in the 1850s - I don't think so.

I am not so sure that the same tragic end would come to the Romanovs if Nicholas had been married to someone else. There might not have been a progressive-thinking princess available but there may have been plenty who would have been better attuned to the people of her adopted country.

Think about it -- not only did the Russian people and the Russian government detest Alexandra, so did the Russian royal family. She managed to alienate three distinct segments of society. If not for her unhealthy reliance on Rasputin, Alexandra might have remained free of trying to run the country, which would have been a good thing. Another princess may not have produced a hemophiliac heir thereby opening the door to Rasputin's meddling.

 

[Cory]

But now she is declared saint by the Orthodox Church.

 

[Al_bina]

And your point? The circumstances of the untimely demise made it possible for the Russian Orthodox Church to declare her saint.

 

[Tsaritsa]

As I read through everything that has been said regarding Alexandra I experienced a sense of isolation and loneliness and wondered if this is how she might have felt. In most dysfunctional families a scapegoat can be found-usually a child. In communities it will be one family who is singled out and a country can blame the government of the day. Did Russia, already in crisis, point its' collective finger at the "German bitch" and lay the blame for it at her feet? Much as she loved Nicholas she must at times, have felt frustrated by his fecklessness and ineptitude, especially at the times when their son's life hung by a thread. How could any decision made at such a time be well thought through and sound? Socialite she certainly was not, but she and the girls must have set a huge example to Russian aristocracy with the stirling work they performed in the hospital, the woman they accused of every crime known to man and then some was certainly not afraid to get her hands dirty in the service of others, nor did she exhibit the aloofness she was accused of when it came to friendships with those she felt she could trust. Anna Vyrubova and Sophie Buxheovden? both speak of her in warm tones. She seems to have been a kind and generous friend to them both, personally nursing them when they were ill and taking on the role of Godmother to Sophie's son-I don't believe they were the only ones but it would take a very brave soul to stand alone when the rest are pointing fingers.
Yes, she made mistakes but holding her personally responsible for the downfall of Russia is making her too powerful by far. The scene had been set decades before, Alexandra only played a role in the final act.

 

[AristoCat]

In most dysfunctional families a scapegoat can be found-usually a child. In communities it will be one family who is singled out and a country can blame the government of the day. Did Russia, already in crisis, point its' collective finger at the "German bitch" and lay the blame for it at her feet?

You have a point there, but there were times when she stepped over the mark and it was vital that while she did do good, she should have in fact reached out to society and not the government.

 

[ilovemonaco]

they didnt have to kill them

 

[Barton]

The Romanov's were headed for trouble long belong Alexandra arrived on the scene. However her stubbornness did play a minor part.

Do you blame Alexandra for what happened to the Romanovs? Either alone or together with her husband?
It seemed that a lot of bad omens surrounded her when she moved to Russia.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

But now she is declared saint by the Orthodox Church.

But what does this have to do with Alexandra's involvement with the downfall of the dynasty? She was killed as a political act; I for one do not see that she died for her Orthodox belief.

they didnt have to kill them

You are absolutely correct but this thread is not about justifying Alexandra's death. It is about the extent of her involvement in the downfall of the Romanovs.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Look at all the things Alexandra did wrong, make a list of them, and research how many times she was advised to not do these things for the good of Russia and the country but she simply ignored the advise of others. After doing all that then tell me she is nothing more than a scapegoat. Perhaps people are misunderstanding the point of this thread, I am not saying it was all Alexandra's fault, Nicholas had a much bigger hand in the demise of the Romanov dynasty. What I was wondering is if anyone who has read up on her, can't help but to blame her a little bit for the Romanov dynasty being ousted. Of course it is not all her fault, but do you believe some of it was her fault. That is what I was asking, despite the fact that the title of my thread has been changed!

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear XeniaCasaraghi,
See what you have started, my dear?
I have enjoyed the discussions on this thread. It would be a boring world if we all agreed all the time.

 

[kell]

well you gotta remember the head of the secert service was also haveing his agents write alexandra letters flasely in the name of people to show support for alix kinda easy to not be fooled by that as she was

 

[Tsaritsa]

XeniaCasaraghi, hello.Yes, Alexandra made some massively bad judgement calls but her own could never have been less than clouded and 20/20 vision is a wonderful thing. Perfection is illusive and the most that mere mortals can hope to achieve is "good enough" Nothing that anyone does is in isolation, every decision taken is dependent on personal experiences, so it was thus for Alexandra. To my knowledge, only one perfect human being has ever walked this earth and there must have been occasions when He doubted Himself. The rest of us go on doing the best we can with whatever hand we have been dealt and at some time we will all be guilty of making errors of judgement.

 

[fearghas]

Hello I would like to throw in a few things that I think may be relevant. First I think it is ironic that Alix was called the "german'Bitch when most of the Romanov wives were from german families. But in many ways she wasn't really german. Much of her upbringing was in England and she was very english in some ways. As i understand from what I have read she was very undemonstrative in public, which is a very upperclass énglish thing. Her cousin Ena was accused of being cold and infeeling as well whem she didn't throw a hysterical fit at her wedding when the bomb was thrown at them. Alix tended to behane in a similar upright sort of way. Remeber when all the people were killed at the coronation and even though she had been crying in private, at the ball she looked very composed, as if she didn't care, in contrast to her mother in law who was very demonstrative in public.
Alix was mentally unstable. I've noticed that people here in this forum still don't like to consider such things but an illness is an illness, whether mental or physical. Much of Alixs physical illmness' can be considered as symptoms of the mental and emotional turmoil she would have been in. This would have contributed to her appearing unfeeling as well because she would have straining hard to keep herself together.
Unfortunately she was the wrong bride for the Romanovs and those around her knew it. Unfortunately, rather than try to support and help her, those who should have been able to help, her mother in law and sister, and sisters in law, chose instead to belittle her or were in no position to help.
The Romanov dynasty were constantly affected by misfortune. The early death of the tsaravitch Nicholas in 1865 was a piece of special badluck. A well educated man similar in outlook of his father, Aleander II, educated in the role of the Tsar he was a bitter loss. Alex III was a completely different man who was not liked by his father, not educated and a reactionary to change. He was not really the man needed for the throne.
Then Alex II untimely death and the failure to get the new constitution. I can only shake mt head when I read of his refusal to go to safety. Why does it seem that so many men who want and are in a position to make changes refuse to protect themselves.

I am a monarchist and I would love to have monarchies back in all the european thrones but the Romanovs do show how heridtary positions can really backfire badly.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I concur with what you say, Fearghas, although I thought her emotional state was generally accepted. Another point which could be thrown into the mix is Alexandra's female role model. Queen Victoria was hardly a good example of ruling publicly, in fact her maxim may have been the one used frequently by my ex husband "Why should I if I don't want to?" Victoria made a career out of staying out of the public gaze, would it be very surprising if her grandaughter believed that this was how one reigned? Also, could it not be said that Victoria's own emotional state was questionable and is it not possible that she spent the greater part of her adult life in depressions of varying depths? Supposing Alexandra was attempting to be the monarch she saw her Grandmother as being?

 

[AristoCat]

Unfortunately she was the wrong bride for the Romanovs and those around her knew it. Unfortunately, rather than try to support and help her, those who should have been able to help, her mother in law and sister, and sisters in law, chose instead to belittle her or were in no position to help.

There were a lot of courtiers who could have helped, but Alix rejected them, mainly because she refused to invite them over, work to get to know them, and kept away the rest of the Romanovs to mainly keep her husband to herself. She also judged them as all lazy and immoral and not the 'real Russia.' It was a two way street that Alix didn't work on when she had the chance.

 

[fearghas]

That's true. I believe that the Dowager Empress did try at first and was severly rebuffed. However she didn't want to give up the limelight and was delighted when Alix proved to be reclusive.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Just because Maria might have been happy with Alexandra being into isolation doesn't excuse Alexandra from doing it. If she had bothered to get to know Russia she would have become better acquainted with her duty; you say Alexandra learned isolation and her mental problems from Queen Victoria, but if Alexandra had been smart enough she would have recognized the difference between a constitutional monarch and an autocrat. She defended and supported Nicholas role as an autocrat but didn't want to put in the effort to maintain it. Even in England where the monarch is not all powerful, Victoria's behavior was causing a problem. Did Alexandra bother to learn anything about what an autocracy was and how it is to be handled? Isolating herself is one thing, but isolating her children and especially the Tsar is just taking it too far. I understand she was shy, I am a shy person who likes being alone as well and I sympathize with her. But there are many shy people throughout history who have still done their duty.
I apologize if once again it seems I am blaming only Alix for the problems of Russia, I am aware that it goes far beyond her.

 

[AristoCat]

If Alexandra had gotten off of her high, self righteous horse for once, she would have made things so much easier for herself and Russia. She judged all the Romanovs without getting to know them, alienated en entire nation, and then encourgaed her husband to keep ruling on his own, wihtout realizing that it was killing him slowly. A Duma would have takne a huge burden off of him and then saved him from the nervous collapse he had right after abdication.


As for autocracy, she mistook it for not having to be accountable. God did not place her there because she was uniquely qualified, he placed her in Hesse and then she married Nicholas and then God ripped her from her throne (like Marie Antoinette) because she showed herself unwilling to pay the price of her position.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Alexandra learned isolation and her mental problems from Queen Victoria, but if Alexandra had been smart enough she would have recognized the difference between a constitutional monarch and an autocrat. She defended and supported Nicholas role as an autocrat but didn't want to put in the effort to maintain it. Even in England where the monarch is not all powerful, Victoria's behavior was causing a problem. Did Alexandra bother to learn anything about what an autocracy was and how it is to be handled?

XeniaCasaraghi, if Alexandra had been smart enough much may have been different. I see her mindset regarding the monarchy,and Russia as simple and uncomplicated-if one was a monarch, one ruled/reigned-and came to her courtesy of her beloved Granny, who had reigned forever, was the fount of all knowledge and whose views were unchallengable. I don't imagine she thought there had ever been a time when Granny had had to LEARN how to be Queen and I don't suppose Victoria recalled those earlier days and whilst her behaviour might have been causing problems for her government, Victoria, had she even cared to know, would simply have dug in her heels and done whatever she wanted.........and Alexandra would have witnessed this behaviour. She didn't need to know any details, knowing that this was how Granny did things would have been enough, and in any place, other than Russia, it might have worked.

 

[AristoCat]

Even IF Nicholas had not been an autocrat, she was still not a good Consort; with any throne she would have been a liability because of her reitring nature and unwillingness to understand that when she married a monarch, she would belong to the State and public, not herself and she would have to perform a vital social function.

 

[NotAPretender]

If I were to put a number on it, I would place the blame for the final downfall at 75% on Alix.

The remaining 25% would be a combination of Nicholas and his father, and the Romanov refusal to adhere to very basic marriage laws which in turn led to their taking no part in public life and duties, but continuing to sup at the public trough. Unbridled and rampant greed without performing the duties that come with a position certainly made the Romanovs look corrupt and indifferent to the needs of the country.

 

[AristoCat]

Unbridled and rampant greed without performing the duties that come with a position certainly made the Romanovs look corrupt and indifferent to the needs of the country.

That was definately it really. It's not like they bothered to marry responsibly and too many ran Nicholas over and did what they wanted, when they should have been rallying around and supporting Nicholas at every turn. They could have made things so much easier if they had shown some restraint and then NOT married some of the women they did. Grand Duke Michael did the worst out of all of them, marrying a twice divorced commoner when he KNEW he was in line to become Emperor after Nicholas.

defended and supported Nicholas role as an autocrat but didn't want to put in the effort to maintain it

I agree; her job as Consort was to make his personal and social life as easy as possible. It was her JOB to be social, to reach out, and to ensure that she had smoothed out the path so the other Romanovs could be part of things as needed, socially or politically. It was never her job to interfere in politics and also to tell Nicholas who to hire and fire based on Rasputin's viewpoint.

 

[Benedict XVI]

If nicholas had not had such a controlling wife I would bet that he would have given in more to the liberal demands that the people and the Duma wanted. A huge mistake that nicholas made was that he decided to take control of his armed forces shortly after the outbreak of World War I. He had no experience in military. But the even worst mistake was to leave the internal running of the country to his wife who was even less able to run the government than he was. When she took over control of the government she made some very dumb mistakes. The first issue was the fact that she relied to heavily on Rasputin. Who was a complete and total idiot. She would not listen to any of the advisors that knew anything about it. I think that she wanted power and her husband was so weak that he wouldn't do anything.

 

[AristoCat]

Look at all the things Alexandra did wrong, make a list of them, and research how many times she was advised to not do these things for the good of Russia and the country but she simply ignored the advise of others. After doing all that then tell me she is nothing more than a scapegoat. Perhaps people are misunderstanding the point of this thread, I am not saying it was all Alexandra's fault, Nicholas had a much bigger hand in the demise of the Romanov dynasty. What I was wondering is if anyone who has read up on her, can't help but to blame her a little bit for the Romanov dynasty being ousted. Of course it is not all her fault, but do you believe some of it was her fault. That is what I was asking, despite the fact that the title of my thread has been changed!

I have to agree; she came to Russia, isolated herself from society, ended up condemning society, and then began almost immediately interfering in politics. Now tell me why she didn't deserve quite a bit of condemnation. She thought she knew better than her husband about a country she knew nothing about and she let her persecution complex infect her husband as well. She refused to accept that she had a public role to fulfill and the Russian people wanted to like her and get to know her. She also made it difficult for the rest of the Romanovs to spend time with Nicholas and she kept trying to have the rights of a private person with the authority of a Tsarina, incompatible traits. The one person I think should have helped her was the Dowager Empress Marie, someone who didn't really try to help her when she could have.