Tsar Alexander III (1845-1894) and Empress Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar) (1847-1928)

[Grace Angel]

Yes, I don't think the Russian aristocracy were running themselves into debt to enterain the IF like the British aristocacy. Dagmar was popular with Russian society, unlike her sucessor Alexandra who made a contribution to the revolution in that she didn't have much to do with Russian society, thus creating more divisions in the Romanov family, and nobility.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

Yes, I don't think the Russian aristocracy were running themselves into debt to enterain the IF .

They had considerably more resources than the nobility in Britian. Land, minerals, serfs. . .

[Grace Angel]

Defintely, although that led to the fall of Russian nobility too. The English nobility are still around and thriving. The world of The Romanovs/ Russian nobility was certainly splendid, but also ripe to fall, unfortunately.

[Russophile]

I'm in the middle of "Little MOther of Russia" by Coryne Hall and I wonder, if Alexandra had let Minnie go on her merry way influencing NIcholas and not being the stick in the mud she was, would things have changed?

[Odette]

Absolutely in mho......If the Empress Marie could influence the Tsar and advise him he would have been much better served.
Alexandra, although she deeply loved the Tsar she was suspicious of the
Russians and very critical of the aristocracy's "immorality".

[Russophile]

And there's the rub. Minnie didn't approve of their goings on either. Alexander was a very loving and faithful husband. But that didn't stop Minnie from enjoying the gossip. Alix never learned to "play the game" and that cost them their lives. You always have to play the game in politics of that sort. She (Alix) should have taken lessons from Minnie and Catherine the Great.

[COUNTESS]

Alexander was a dreadful monarch. An autocrat, an anti-semite, etc., but he loved his wife and family. Marie was fun loving and knew how to play the game. The empire didn't fall, because of one little thing or another. It fell because people were hungry, angry, subjugated and treated like dirt. The rich lived fairytale lives, the others lived nightmare lives. France in 1796, only this was 1917.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Alexander was a dreadful monarch. An autocrat, an anti-semite, etc., but he loved his wife and family.

Agreed. But look at what he had to work with. I wonder what would have happened were they to have a better industrial revolution there. . .

[COUNTESS]

No. It was his upbringing and his basic lack of intellectual curiosity. Plus the imbued bigotry. What nature or nuture didn't change, was that he was a loving family man. Great to his wife and children. That speaks volumes, too. He loved children and was fun to be with for them. He was not a particularly bright or well taught man. A second son. Perhaps, if the blight of anti-semitism did not exist in all of Eurpoean Royalty..... he really was no different and he if he was able to access more useable knowledge......but it is what it is.

[Iluvbertie]

It wasn't only the royals who were anti-semitic.

Many of the general populace were as well (and unfortunately it is still there - I was in Poland and Russia in 2002 and one thing that came through loud and clear from the local tour guides was that Jews aren't the same as 'us' and they need to be kept separate).

I did speak to the Tour Guide that we had for the entire tour and he agreed with me - that anti-semitism is alive and well in Europe and then said - 'but the Jews aren't Europeans either' (he had a Danish mother and an American father but he still made comments like these).

[COUNTESS]

You are right. The populace, plus many churches kept anti-semitism flourishing. Today, is disheartening to hear that. Makes you wonder.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

No. It was his upbringing and his basic lack of intellectual curiosity. Plus the imbued bigotry. What nature or nuture didn't change, was that he was a loving family man. Great to his wife and children. That speaks volumes, too. He loved children and was fun to be with for them. He was not a particularly bright or well taught man. A second son. Perhaps, if the blight of anti-semitism did not exist in all of Eurpoean Royalty..... he really was no different and he if he was able to access more useable knowledge......but it is what it is.

His minister helped with that (anti-semitism). He became Nicholas' minister as well.

[Westminster]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

...anti-semitism is alive and well in Europe...

I wouldn't agree with saying Europe. Europe is a continent with a lot of very different countries. Eastern Europe is very different from middle- or south europe, France is very different from Germany and Italy from Great Britain. For that I wouldn't say that anti-semitism is a big topic in my country. As for your comment - well, the jewish culture isn't indeed european culture. Don't get me wrong, I hate antisemitism and all kind of discrimination and intolerance.

And yes, it wasn't only the royals which disliked the jews, it was all sort of people because some jews had high jobs and big money and I believe there was a lot envy!

[Grace Angel]

I think Marie's influence on Nicholas would have been better than Alexandra's, for sure. But Nicholas would have been best off had he made his own choices, not that he was the type to do that as he was not strong willed, and he was easily influenceable. If someone had to dominate him, it was better Marie though.

[Russophile]

Isn't that sad that Nicholas had to be dominated to get things done. It seems he didn't have a sense of discernment to figure things out. Minnie had a terrific sense of discernment and was quick witted to know what was good for the country. Nicholas should have paid attention to that.
Oh well, if wishes were horses, beggers would ride. . .

[COUNTESS]

Nicholas was not his father. He could barely make a decision. Although, he fought for Alix. He was a terrible monarch, his mother had far more wit and guile on her side.

[Grace Angel]

Nicholas just didn't have the personality to be tsar, and then he married someone who dominated him in the wrong way. Everyone wanted to give Nicholas advice from his wife, to his uncles to his mother. But it is likely that Marie's advice wasn't as self interested as the advice of his uncles (especially Vladimir and his family, not pleased that the throne had passed them by), and Marie's advice was defintely better than Alexandra's. Alexandra didn't have very good judgement, to say the least and always believed she was right, and would never admit she was in error.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Nicholas was not his father. He could barely make a decision. Although, he fought for Alix. He was a terrible monarch, his mother had far more wit and guile on her side.

Yes, he did fight for Alix. And she was a terrible choice. She hadn't any initiative and Minnie, for her part, didn't train her like she should have in the court ways, then again, Minnie was an awfully clever person and figured a lot of it out on her own (as Empress Marie was much of the time bedridden and ailing).
What do you think if Michael had been allowed to marry Baby Bee (of Roumania)?

[EmpressRouge]

I think Minnie tried to help Alix, at least in the beginning, but Alix never bothered to learn. Minnie knew that Alix court usurp her as the queen bee of court and would have probably wanted Alix to at least be presentable. Alix was definitely stubborn and just flat out refused to participate in court life.

The only place Alix managed to steal from Minnie was influence on Nicky. In the beginning of the marriage, mother and son were still very close and he did turn to Minnie for advice. But after a serious illness during which Alix nursed him tirelessly back to health, he came to completely rely on Alix. Minnie's hold on her son was lost and realized as he stopped visiting his mother so frequently on a daily basis.

[Velkoknezna Maria]

Empress Marie Fyodorovna, 1870
Illustration of wedding of Princess Dagmar to Tsarevich Alexander