The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Imperial Family of Russia (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f80/)
-   -   Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f80/tsar-nicholas-ii-1868-1918-and-empress-alexandra-feodorovna-alix-1872-1918-a-8643.html)

gaoshan1021 12-04-2002 09:37 AM

Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918)
 
6 Attachment(s)
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna

Empress Aleksandra 01-02-2004 02:08 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna

Alexandra Feodorovna
1872-1918, last Russian czarina, consort of Nicholas II ; she was a Hessian princess and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Neurotic and superstitious, she was easily dominated by Rasputin , who seemingly was able to check the hemophilia of her son. During World War I, when Nicholas took command (Sept., 1915) of the forces at the front, Alexandra Feodorovna assumed control in St. Petersburg and prevailed upon her husband to replace independent and liberal ministers with those favored by Rasputin. Her great unpopularity was increased by widespread suspicions that she was pro-German. With her husband and children, she was shot by the Bolsheviks.

HIM Empress Aleksandra Fyodorovna

lizichitao 03-16-2006 07:49 AM

It seems that Nicolas II is a good father but not a good leader of a country.

Leslie2006 04-03-2006 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizichitao
It seems that Nicolas II is a good father but not a good leader of a country.

Yep, he was. He loved his children, but payed no attention the needs of his subjects. So as a result, he lost the throne and his life. Although, I don't think the family deserved to die. I think the Bolsheviks should have just gotten him off the throne and sent the family into exile, like what happenend in Greece (twice). They would have at least lived that way.

Vanesa 05-04-2006 01:07 AM

There is people who exploses with hate when other people -like myself, for example :p - states that they love and admires the Romanovs as martyrs and Cross Bearers.

No matter. Those who loves and admires them, will love and admire them FOREVER. You may shout, insult, become mad, etc...You are in your right to do so. And we are in our right to do otherwise as well. This is democracy...Isn't it? That all people can think what she/he wants. Republicans are always speaking about freedom, but sometimes (not all of them but most of them) don't let people to think that they want.

Romanovs had lots of faults...as almost all people I know has faults as well. If Saints themselves has faults, it's not rare that most of people has faults. God is the only Being without faults and sins, as far as I know.

The truth comes ALWAYS to the surface. And it will come again. As ever did.

Vanesa.:o

Vanesa 05-04-2006 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaoshan1021
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna

Tsarista Alexandra was a beatiful woman...But did you notice what a sad face she almost always has when photographed? There was only some pics where you may see her smiling. I think she was a woman with a very tragic sense of life...

Vanesa.

Ritka 05-04-2006 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie2006
Yep, he was. He loved his children, but payed no attention the needs of his subjects. So as a result, he lost the throne and his life. Although, I don't think the family deserved to die. I think the Bolsheviks should have just gotten him off the throne and sent the family into exile, like what happenend in Greece (twice). They would have at least lived that way.

I agree. It's such a tragedy that the Bolsheviks felt they had to eliminate the whole dynasty.

CasiraghiTrio 08-04-2006 11:58 AM

Objective view of the Last Tsar
 
Everyone on this forum seems to be enamored of "Nicky and Alix" to the point of being blind to the fact that Nicholas II just was not a good ruler. He was incompetent with a capital I and certainly had something of a dark side. First of all, his brutal response to the 1905 "revolution" (really, a peaceful protest of workers; after all, none were armed) only turned the tide even more against him. He ordered the army to unleash violence against these unarmed working-class citizens. Secondly, one of his last acts shows that he was not very bright. In exile in the Urals, he received a letter from someone claiming to be a supporter offering to help him and his family escape. He immediately replied to this letter with enthusiastic gratitude, not thinking for a second that it could be a trap. That gave the Bolsheviks the perfect excuse they needed to assasinate the family and be done with them once and for all.
Now, in all fairness, Nicky never wanted to be Tsar. He was born in a position that made it ultimately unavoidable, but he never would have chosen it.
It just goes to show that monarchy as a form of government does not work effectively, because those who are "born to rule" are not necessarily those who should rule.

BeatrixFan 08-06-2006 07:34 AM

Well, for me personally, I have a huge personal devotion to them because of the faith I have. Alexandra has become my personal Saint and when I'm chrismated, I'm taking the name Alexis as a male version of her name so I do have a strict devotion to her but I'm not blind to the fact that Nicholas wasn't a good ruler. But I'd say that he was a good Tsar because he did have the loyalty of alot of Russians at the start of his reign and even at the end. I think there were two major factors in his reign that made his life impossible and those were his family and as you rightly say CasiraghiTrio, he never wanted to be Tsar.

Alexandra was good for Nicholas because she loved him and adored him but her religious views, whilst I personally agree with them, influenced Nicholas in a way that was quite harmful. When Nicholas said, "I must listen to the Duma", Alexandra would tell him that he was their God given Tsar and he should ignore them. Now whilst I agree with her, when Russia was calling out for a parliament, Nicholas could have given it to them.

To me, it seems Nicholas had two sides to his beliefs about his role. On the one hand he saw himself as a servant to the people, a diplomat and someone who felt that the people should have a Duma and a system like the British. But then he'd change completely and would take on a more autocratic stance. He was the Tsar and what he said was law and that was that.

I do disagree with your last statement, because I think monarchy can work as a form of Government but it has to have a safety net and in Russia's case, the Duma was the that safety net. When it was removed, Nicholas had no idea what to do with the aftermath. I believe that he was so scared when riots happened etc that the answer was to just silence it. If he couldn't see it, it wasn't happening. And in the beginning it worked. He could pop off to Livadia or Spala and be with his family and riots in St Petersburg were a million miles away. But later on, it became harder and shooting the rioters did the job but it painted him as a tyrant rather than as a man who was devoted to Russia but suffered at the hands of demanding politicians, a domineering wife and mother and a 17th century country trying to survive in a 20th century world.

I will just point out though that Nicholas didn't order the shooting of those who marched towards the palace in 1905. He was blamed for it but it's well documented that the commanding officer on duty panicked when he saw the crowds coming rather quickly and ordered the shooting himself. Nicholas was then called Bloody Nicholas and called brutal and a tyrant but he didn't know about it until it had happened.

I think that you bring up an interesting point that people do have blind loyalty but I think that for non-religious people, it's the fact that such a horrific murder could take place and the killers never brought to trial. It's as if the affection somehow makes up for it. Of course, the religious position is very very different because Nicholas and Alexandra are given a special place in Russian Orthodoxy and the entire Romanov dynasty is treated with a reverance and a deference that hasn't changed. I do think there is a danger of people becoming carried away with the romanticism of it all but by keeping things in context there's alot to be learned from Nicholas and Alexandra.

branchg 08-06-2006 12:20 PM

The truth is the Russian Tsarist Empire was on life support long before Nicholas II came to the throne. The poverty, famines and fundamental disorder of the provinces due to nationalist pressures were too great to overcome, even with a Duma and democratic government. When World War I broke out, it was the final blow.

The Communists succeeded where the Tsars had failed because they were willing to be brutal and kill millions of their own people in prison camps. But eventually this system failed too.

Russia still has many challenges ahead and the iron-fisted ways of the Imperial Presidency are still very much the reality.

Tinika 08-06-2006 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
In the meantime, Penny Wilson and Greg King have recently written an excellent book titled the Fate of the Romanovs. They've gone through previously unavailable archived material and conducted dozens of interviews etc. Marlene Koenig gave their book an excellent review and said (IIRC) that it was the definitive work on the subject and that it would set a new standard hereinafter. I would highly recommend it to those interested in the subject.

Penny Wilson is an acquaintance of mine and I can attest to the fact that she and Greg King put an unbelievably exhaustive amount of time and research into this book. It's an absolute must-read for anyone interested in the Romanovs, for sure.

CasiraghiTrio 09-04-2006 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Well, for me personally, I have a huge personal devotion to them because of the faith I have. Alexandra has become my personal Saint and when I'm chrismated, I'm taking the name Alexis as a male version of her name so I do have a strict devotion to her but I'm not blind to the fact that Nicholas wasn't a good ruler. But I'd say that he was a good Tsar because he did have the loyalty of alot of Russians at the start of his reign and even at the end. I think there were two major factors in his reign that made his life impossible and those were his family and as you rightly say CasiraghiTrio, he never wanted to be Tsar.

Alexandra was good for Nicholas because she loved him and adored him but her religious views, whilst I personally agree with them, influenced Nicholas in a way that was quite harmful. When Nicholas said, "I must listen to the Duma", Alexandra would tell him that he was their God given Tsar and he should ignore them. Now whilst I agree with her, when Russia was calling out for a parliament, Nicholas could have given it to them.

I understand your feelings are very sentimental, so I will try to state my reply respectfully. It's difficult because fundamentally we come from very different perceptions of the same events. To me, it was not just loyalty that motivated Alexandra. At the risk of trying to put myself in her mind, I feel it was also extreme stupidity. Alexandra has a good heart. She loved her family. But she was a simpleton who was too easily persuaded by religion and charming, well-spoken courtiers. Alix was told what she wanted to hear, that everything would be fine, people would "see" the light, things would sort themselves out, and she believed this because it is what she wanted to believe. It is easy to have blind faith in your god when you are living in the utmost comfort and don't have the normal daily fears and stress of daily life (how to meet the rent, feed your children when you have been laid off from your factory job.) Meanwhile, Alix is praying in the palace chapel, and Lenin is traveling from Germany on a train, on his way to organize his band of brothers and capitalize with them on the feverish discontent of the masses. You can talk sentimentally, but a rational, methodical, pragmatic figure such as Lenin will outsmart your blind faith everytime. This overzealousness of religious faith and belief in the sentiment of the Tsar being "annointed by God" (a myth) had no chance against the pragmatic (nay, dogmatic) and ruthless Bolsheviki vanguard. One could argue that Alix and Nicky avoided the problems instead of trying to solve them. "Oh, let God handle it," seems to be their approach.
Quote:

To me, it seems Nicholas had two sides to his beliefs about his role. On the one hand he saw himself as a servant to the people, a diplomat and someone who felt that the people should have a Duma and a system like the British. But then he'd change completely and would take on a more autocratic stance. He was the Tsar and what he said was law and that was that.

I do disagree with your last statement, because I think monarchy can work as a form of Government but it has to have a safety net and in Russia's case, the Duma was the that safety net. When it was removed, Nicholas had no idea what to do with the aftermath. I believe that he was so scared when riots happened etc that the answer was to just silence it. If he couldn't see it, it wasn't happening. And in the beginning it worked. He could pop off to Livadia or Spala and be with his family and riots in St Petersburg were a million miles away. But later on, it became harder and shooting the rioters did the job but it painted him as a tyrant rather than as a man who was devoted to Russia but suffered at the hands of demanding politicians, a domineering wife and mother and a 17th century country trying to survive in a 20th century world.
I am as much enamored of royalty and all the traditions it preserves as anyone else on the forums. However, as a system of government? No.... I think it was never an effective system of government. Take Alix and Nicky's "faith" in God as a case in point. Any ruler who leaves problems to God to handle is a scary ruler, in my opinion. Leave it to God? You might as well have no government at all.
Quote:

I will just point out though that Nicholas didn't order the shooting of those who marched towards the palace in 1905. He was blamed for it but it's well documented that the commanding officer on duty panicked when he saw the crowds coming rather quickly and ordered the shooting himself. Nicholas was then called Bloody Nicholas and called brutal and a tyrant but he didn't know about it until it had happened.
Touche :flowers: I cannot argue with this.
Quote:

I think that you bring up an interesting point that people do have blind loyalty but I think that for non-religious people, it's the fact that such a horrific murder could take place and the killers never brought to trial. It's as if the affection somehow makes up for it. Of course, the religious position is very very different because Nicholas and Alexandra are given a special place in Russian Orthodoxy and the entire Romanov dynasty is treated with a reverance and a deference that hasn't changed. I do think there is a danger of people becoming carried away with the romanticism of it all but by keeping things in context there's alot to be learned from Nicholas and Alexandra.
Another good point. The murder was heinous, no person with a heart can argue that. But there are millions of heinous crimes that go unrepented, unpunished. This one captures us because it was committed against famous people, a ruling family. To raise them to sainthood????
I won't say anymore except that I don't agree with making them saints, but that's because I am not of Russian Orthodox persuasion, in case you hadn't noticed already....:tongue:
You Russian Orthodox, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox people can keep your saints, it's your right, but I have no part of that...hehe.
But I must add that I fully believe in honoring them, if for nothing else but their suffering. Anyone who suffers like that should be honored. I love the Romanovs. I hope my statements have not misled anyone to think otherwise.
I just like to be objective. It's good to discuss these matters. If I had not made my original post then I would not have been put in my place regarding the 1905 revolution. Am I wrong on the year? 1905? '02? For some reason, those years in Russian history blur in my memory. It's such an eventful phase, with so many dates....

Vanesa 09-05-2006 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Well, for me personally, I have a huge personal devotion to them because of the faith I have.

Don't worry about what people said, BeatrixFan. I share all of your opinions and I like very much how did you said them. I'm a little tired of the ones who , every time that knows that you admires someone said that this person is a "myth" and that she/he is not like you know she/he is. Then, you'll bring you a bunch of revisionist books where there is written that your admired one was not intelligent, sweet, devoted to the church, a great lover of his /her country, etc, etc, but a stupid traditionalist (as if being a traditionalist was a wrong thing), narrow-minded, racist and really an idiot and a selfish person...I read a lot of new books trying desperately to demonstrate how "wild" Nicholas and Alexandra 's children were, how hysterical the Tsaritsa was, how a tyrant and a repressor Nicholas was and even how the true devotion of each of the Tsar close family (I mean NAOTMAA) felt for each other was simply a myth.

These are the facts: Olga was a depressing young woman who felt oppressed by her mean mother./Tatiana had a bondary submissive-sick relationship with Alexandra/Maria and Anastasia felt unloved and begged to their cold mother to be accepted for she only loved her son Alexis deeply/Alexis was a wild manipulative child who liked to gave bleeding noses to their playmates, knowing that hey couldn't answer to him in the same way, since he was an hemophiliac...All the children were awfully bad behaved and none of them had a truly religious Faith...AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!! :bang: :mad: What more can I say?

I admire Nicholas and Alexandra and I know what mistakes they did, since I'm not blind. Saint people are sinner too, and commits lots of mistakes and they could act even badly. Only God is perfect. But I think it is no need to lie to demonstrate that NAOTMAA were not perfect. However, with all their defaults and bad actions (like ourselves...sadly we are all sinners and partly bad here :rolleyes: ) I still admire this family. I think they remains a symbol of a devoted family, a religious pious family destroyed by the brutality of a Century that even now is not ended. Their blood are the blood of all the victims of the Century.

Nowadays, Nicholas and Alexandra seems to have been revindicated. This is not true. They are only superficially revindicated. Their time is not ready yet. The world that killed them sadly, lasts . But I'm seeing how close the end of this nightmare is.

Please, BeatrixFan: pray to them for me. You seems to be a so nice person.:flowers:

Vanesa.

Furienna 11-17-2006 07:21 PM

I watched a Discovery Civilization documentary about the last tsar family today, and before that, I hadn't known, that Nikolai actually abdicated and wanted to give his brother Mikhail the thrown. Like Louie XVI and Marie Antoinette in 1790's France, Nikolai and Alexandra were the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

BeatrixFan 11-17-2006 07:30 PM

Quote:

Please, BeatrixFan: pray to them for me. You seems to be a so nice person.
Thankyou Vanesa. Your post was great to read.

Quote:

I hadn't known, that Nikolai actually abdicated and wanted to give his brother Mikhail the throne
Indeed. Nicholas abdicated for him and for his son. Some have said that it was because he thought Alexis would be made a puppet of the revolutionaries and others have said that it was because he wanted the family to stay together. Personally I think that Nicholas was intelligent enough to know that he'd be imprisoned and didn't want Alexis to suffer as he had.

Furienna 11-17-2006 07:37 PM

According to this documentary, Nikolai didn't want to abdicate in favor of Alexis, because he wanted the boy to be able to stay with his family. And really, how could a thirteen-year-old haemophiliac not become a puppet?

BeatrixFan 11-17-2006 07:40 PM

I agree. Lenin would have made him a total slave. But then again, did Lenin need Alexis? The British Government had sent a message (without George V knowing) to Lenin saying that the revolution was a "bold step for democracy" and France had also given their support. With the situation as it was, the Triple Entente parties would have kept Russia sweet so that it didn't pull out of the war. Lenin had a free reign so I don't really know whether Lenin would have used Alexis or not.

Furienna 11-17-2006 07:43 PM

Well, if they had needed him, they wouldn't have killed him. Of course they didn't need Alexis. And using him would go against the bolsjevik believes anyway. There was no longer any need for a tsar.

And yay, this is my 400th post!

BeatrixFan 11-17-2006 07:46 PM

Well, I've always believed that Lenin simply became a Tsar himself.

Blanch 11-18-2006 07:54 AM

That's right, if you consider that Lenin had an absolute power as well, and the people didn't live much better with him.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises