Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Enough courtiers and even family members have written their autobiographies since the Revolution so I am sure if the Emperor had been having mistresses on the side someone would have written about it, perhaps even one of the women themselves. The published / exerpted letters & diaries of Nicky and Sunny seem to show a couple quite devoted to each other.
 
I think Nicholas and Alexandra's general unfitness to be Tsar and Tsarina hastened the fall of the House of Romanov, but I think it was coming anyway and had been for a long time. I'm not sure any autocract on the throne during WWI in Russia could have survived.

To me the saddest thing about N and A is how thoroughly the deck was stacked against them from day one--from Alexander III failing to properly educate or prepare his son, Nicholas's own weak willed personality, his domineering uncles (who often-though not always-gave poor advice), Alexandra's shyness, dominating personality, inflexibility, her own mother-in-law publicly working against her, her complete lack of preparation to go from a small modest court to the lavish, immodest Russsian one.....True, neither one ever "rose to the occassion"....but the whole situation is just incredibly sad to me. I just don't think either one of them really knew what they were doing.

I'm not an expert, but I tend to think the last real chance to save the institution was when Alexander II was Tsar and was instituting his reforms, including a constitution. Had he not been assassinated and lived long enough to get his reforms firmly in place.....maybe things would have been different. Even then, that may have been "too little, too late." Beyond that, if Nicholas II had been serious about giving the people more of a voice after the 1905 Revolution....perhaps. But, he wasn't. He thought he was supposed to be an autocrat.
 
Last edited:
Erin9, on the third attempt!!! Hello and I totally agree.

N and A put the last nail in a coffin which had been a long time in the making and the coming tsunami was impossible for them to prevent.
As Autocrats they were quite unsuitable but how a man who has been dominated all his life suddenly becomes one is beyond me and how does a girl, raised quietly and modestly, within the nunlike confines of QVs court, cope with the sophistication and loucheness of the Russian court where her resentful mother-in-law is very much Queenbee? I believe their marriage not unlike that of Victoria and Albert and it's possible they may have felt that if they led by example the court would follow.

To whom could they turn for advice on Aotocracy? Were there books? An Autocrat gave orders. As the fount of all knowledge they clearly had no need of advice and who would dare offer it? I imagine they followed what they perceived being done by their role models-for him, his father, for her, her Grandmother. However, they became as actors giving an unrehearsed performance because he lacked his fathers confidence and authority and the authority which sat so comfortably on Victoria's capable shoulders made her granddaughter look like a domineering woman who had the temerity to ridicule her Autocrat and Tsar of all the Russias husband, when all she was trying to do was convince him that he was a true Autocrat.

For them both, abdication would have been unthinkable and I believe they did their best and were always totally commited to Russia, but whether through lack of foresight or fear of change, it was the Russia it had always been, not the Russia it was capable of being.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICAM. Well said.

Nicholas and Alexandra were a product of how they were raised and who their primary influences were. Their basic character traits were formed before they came to the throne. I'm generally left with: How could have been expected to be much different than they were?

I'm always amazed-stunned really--at how spectacularly Alexander III failed to prepare his son. And Minnie....don't even get me started.lol

While I understand that Alexandra's job was to "fit in" in Russia, I certainly understand why she was appalled by what she found there. She was a shy, very moral girl from a small court-taught to spend her time doing useful things. She wasn't going to magically turn into an outgoing social butterfly filling her time with essentially frivolous activities. Plus, she was destined to be out-shone by her mother-in-law anyway. I know the problems between Minnie and Alexandra were a two way street and neither really "got" the other, but I always felt badly for Alexandra getting stuck with Minnie as a MIL.

Everything I've read about the Russian Court at the time leads me to believe it was quite an amoral place full of people who wasted a lot of time. No wonder they were resented. Alexandra really wasn't going to fit in with them--even had she made more of an effort than she did. IIRC, Alexandra did try to lead by example and probably thought that was also her job (to "fix" things)--like trying to get some of the ladies to spend their time doing useful things. They just didn't follow her lead.

As a general thing, I don't put too much of the responsibility for the revolution on Nicholas and Alexandra's shoulders. (Much like I don't put too much responsibility on King Louis XVI for France's Revolution.) Sure, they made some colossal errors that moved things along. No doubt. But, this revolution had been brewing for a long time. The basic, fundamental problems were already there: the huge gap between the very rich and mainly poor, the fact that the country was beyond backwards and behind the times, etc. There were no quick or easy solutions to the problems that took generations to get totally out of control. Everyone knew Russia was a very unstable place BEFORE Nicholas ever got on the throne. If there hadn't been WWI, Nicholas may not have been toppled and the dynasty could've limped along for a little while longer.

Like you, I really believe N and A were TRYING to do the right thing. I give them credit for that. They just failed spectacularly. All Russia had ever known was autocracy, and that's what they thought God had ordained them to keep in place.

If he had been a more brutal tsar, he might have stayed on the throne longer. I always found it ironic that HE got the title "Bloody Nicholas" out of all the Romanovs. How utterly ridiculous imho.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
XeniaCasaraghi said:
How does anyone know for sure if Henry VII was faithful to his wife? Or if Alexander was faithful to Maria? I assume there were people around who could judge the character of the men, how much time they spent with their wives and family and if they ever ran off for secret rendezvous' that nobody could explain. There are way to judge and come to a hypothesis without having been in the bedroom.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Henry VII, but Alexander II was NOT faithful to Maria Alexandrovna; he had 4 children with his mistress Catherine during their marriage. He married Catherine a few days after Maria died.
 
He did not deserve this, especially as such did not deserve his children.
But he was not a good governor, though it sounds cruel, the country needed a change. Of course, these are not cruel, but we paid for everything.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
he certainly had authority in his voice.
Click to expand...

He had authority not only in his voice. He always carried out his will firmly and insistently, and he had a great gift of doing it with patience unlike many other autocratic kings and emperors.

Alira said:
But he was not a good governor... the country needed a change
Click to expand...

I must admit that it was not the whole coutry but the minor (compared to the Russian population) number of the people behind the throne. And if you pay some attention to the statistics on Russia's development rates (these are easily accessible nowadays) in late XIX and especially in 1900-1914, I am sure you will change your mind of Nikolay as the governor.
 
I do not appreciate ..

The romantically potrayed "unflawed marriage" and "strong passionate physical love" or whatever between them. They are not some couple-next-door. They had an enormous role in shaping the future of Russia..and maybe in that way..of the world..and they miserably failed in that. Instead of complementing each other's shortcomings and vulnerabilities they just played into them and highlighted them.
I would still respect Nicolas II even if he had a dozen mistresses, if he were a strong and sensible man..Monarchs too much in love (the better word will be "influence") with their dominating wives are bound to doom..
 
My dear vkrish,

You may not "appreciate" the marriage of Nicholas and Alexandra, however flawed it was, but it does appear to be the union of two people who were greatly in love. Alone or together, they were ill-suited to lead a country but there is no denying that the two were in love with each other. Perhaps a stronger consort might have made Nicholas a better ruler, but I think he was weak and unless he married another Catherine the Great, it would not have mattered who was his wife -- his reign was doomed.
 
I have just read the letters Nicholas sent Alix between 1914-1917, and they are so sweet. Nicholas no doubt had mistresses, it was commonplace in times gone by, but it is so evident he loved Alix deeply. All his little sign offs of "Embrace you closely", Warm kisses" and "I kiss you tenderly" are so lovely. I know it is just a letter and one can write anything in a letter, but they are beautiful to read.

"I thank you from my heart for your two sweet letters. Every time that I see the envelope with your firm writing, my heart leaps several times, and I shut myself up and read, or more correctly absorb the letter."
 
I don't think I have ever read in any of their biographies that Nicholas had a mistress after his marriage to Alix. I think he may have been relatively unique in his time and class and been a faithful spouse. Unique also in that he married the woman he wanted to marry, not one that was chosen for him.
 
Perhaps he did not have a mistress, and I think it would have been lovely if he didn't as it would make me love Nicky and Alix's story even more!

"

MY BELOVED SUNNY, How am I to thank you for your two charming letters and for the lilies? I press them to my face and kiss often the places which I think were touched by your dear lips. "

I can't stop reading the letters, they are so heart warming and proof that there was a lot of love and affection in their marriage, from both parts.
 
Nicholas was totally devoted to Alexandra; he didn't have mistresses from everything I read. (Another website I frequent has stated this fact, also.) I believe Nicholas's father, Alexander III, was totally devoted to his wife, Marie, too.
 
From Nicholas' letters it is clear to see how devoted he was to his wife, and it is a beautiful thing to read. Particularly so because you know that so many other Monarch's and others in similar positions had mistresses and often made their wives hate their lives. I am not saying the women were perfect or faultless, but knowing their husband had mistresses would likely leave them feeling quite degraded.
 
Yes, Nicky married the woman he loved and wanted, but his parents were unhappy with his choice. I've read they wanted him to marry some girl from the Orleans family, but he wouldn't back down from his choice of Alix of Hesse, so his folks had to consent to it, regardless of the fact they didn't approve of it.
 
Alexey 1904 said:
Yes, Nicky married the woman he loved and wanted, but his parents were unhappy with his choice. I've read they wanted him to marry some girl from the Orleans family, but he wouldn't back down from his choice of Alix of Hesse, so his folks had to consent to it, regardless of the fact they didn't approve of it.
Click to expand...

From what I have read Nicholas's parents only agreed to Nicholas marrying Alexandra due to the fact that Nicholas's father's health was failing and they wanted Nicholas married as they didn't think it was suitable for an unmarried man to be crowned Tsar.
 
historyfreak said:
From what I have read Nicholas's parents only agreed to Nicholas marrying Alexandra due to the fact that Nicholas's father's health was failing and they wanted Nicholas married as they didn't think it was suitable for an unmarried man to be crowned Tsar.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that he threatened to become a monk if they expected him to marry anyone other than Alix of Hesse. I think by the end of it all, everyone was just sick and tired of the nonsense and figured it would be better to allow him to marry the woman he loved, rather than deal with the fact that the Heir would become a Tsar and still be unwed.
 
They were perfect spouses really, just not good monarchs. It's good Nicholas had a father who was faithful to his wife. In the royal set, ti's the ultimate sign of respect and love.
 
In The Lost Prince, Alexandra is portayed as very unflattering. She comes off as a snob. You can see her appearance here and here. Though I read in the comments section that her portayal is exaggerated for the sake of drama.
 
Last edited:
Royalty often comes across as snobbish - that's an easy literary trick to play.
 
I don't think Alexanda was a snob but she was very reserved, uncomfortable in public, only at ease around family members and long time friends -- all of this probably contributed to any image which portrayed her as looking down at others.
 
My dear Al bina,

Thank you for posting this link to the newspaper articles. Fascinating to read accounts written at the time of the massacre.
 
That's pretty funny when you think about it; the RF is portrayed as perfectly abstemious and go figure, Nicholas is teaching his daughter how to smoke. These days the anti-smoking brigade would be out in full force.
 
AristoCat said:
That's pretty funny when you think about it; the RF is portrayed as perfectly abstemious and go figure, Nicholas is teaching his daughter how to smoke. These days the anti-smoking brigade would be out in full force.
Click to expand...

Those were different times ("the past is a different country, the do things different there") even as late as the 1950's smoking was a sign of maturity...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Cathedral of the Archangel and Saints Peter and Paul Cathedral (Burial sites of Russian monarchs)
Replies
1
Views
552
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Blog Real
Tatoi Royal Cemetery
Replies
0
Views
236
Blog Real
Blog Real
K
GD George Alexandrovich (1872-1899) - Nicholas II's brother
Replies
9
Views
3K
Prinsara
Prinsara
wbenson
State Visit from the Emperor and Empress of Japan: Spring 2020 [postponed]
2 3
Replies
79
Views
10K
W.Y.CII
W.Y.CII
Marengo
Centenary of the Russian Revolution
Replies
2
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom