The Children of Tsar Nicholas II ("OTMAA") - Page 16

AristoCat · #**301** 04-03-2012, 02:27 AM

I think the succession would pass to the most direct descendant of the last Tsar; therefore if Alexei and three others had died, the fourth, say, Marie would have been Head of House. That is why Anna Anderson was so controversial; if she had been proven to be Anastasia or one of the other Grand Duchesses, she would have been rightful head of House of Romanov, despite Pauline Laws. At the time, the only dynasts were the surviving Grand Dukes who were cousins.

So technically, a surviving daughter would be the rightful Head of House.

Artemisia · #**302** 04-03-2012, 11:39 AM

Not necessarily.
Most people would view the surviving daughter as the rightful heiress, but she wouldn't be one. Since there were at the time surviving cousins, one of them - and not Nicholas' daughter, would have been the Heir. That was one of the reasons Nicholas and Alexandra so desperately wanted a son, and why the birth of an heir afflicted with haemophilia had such a devastating consequences.

The surviving Grand Duchess would only become an Heir when there were no male dynasts available. Thus, assuming Grand Duchess Maria survived, lived to our days, and conducted equal marriage, she would have indeed been the undisputed Head of the House of Romanov. If, however, the Grand Duchess entered a morganatic marriage, she would have lost her rights as a dynast.

Princess Peach · #**303** 05-27-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsaritsa

Just a thought, but might this have been in some way related to Alexandra's loneliness as a child. Could it be, that in her lofty isolation she needed to keep her girls around her as company for her AND company for each other. She would have seen nothing wrong in her actions, indeed, she had been given permission by by Grandmama who was determined to have at least one of her children remain at her side, irelevent of the cost to the child.

From what I have read about Alexandra, it's very possible that she would not have allowed any or some of the girls to marry. I think part of the court's isolation was her, and I don't think she trusted other people. I see OTMA as aging spinsters surrounding their mother, much like the daughters of George III and Charlotte, only some of them eventually allowed to marry, and none of them ultimately happy. Life would, as always, have gravitated around Alexis, and had he eventually died, the girls would have spent their entire lives taking care of Alexandra - which would most likely be a hell on earth.

I also think, much as a I love OTMA, that had they survived, history would not have been kind to them. They were raised in isolation, to a mother who may have been mentally ill and a father incapable of seeing it and intervening. I have read accounts that all four girls were very childish, even in young womanhood, and spoke like children. These are some of the more unfavorable accounts that have surfaced. I'm not sure that they would have been happy in marriages, or capable of relationships after such a demanding mother, although the more independent of the four would most likely have welcomed their liberty. Their mother was also fiercely religious. Of the four, some would have had the same religious zealousness, and some would have rebelled entirely, but all told, I can see all four exhibiting extremist behavior in adulthood.

Alexey 1904 · #**304** 05-27-2012, 06:20 PM

The Romanov girls may have spoken and acted childishly, but when Princess Louise, a second cousin of theirs, through their father, was 18 or 19, she was given a 'children's birthday party' by her mother, Alexandra, who was Nicky's aunt through his mother. So, maybe Nicky inherited some of the 'mental illness' from his aunt, which meant that not only Alexandra Romanova may have been afflicted with said disease.

XeniaCasaraghi · #**305** 05-27-2012, 07:06 PM

I hate having these thoughts but I also feel it was a good thing that the kids died with their parents. Not only because they were emotionally and mentally stunted but because they were deeply attached to their parents and would be deeply depressed living without them.

Warren · #**306** 05-27-2012, 07:29 PM

"...it was a good thing that the kids died with their parents..."
It sounds like you are advocating the mercy killing of emotionally immature children to prevent them becoming orphans.

Princess Peach · #**307** 05-27-2012, 07:32 PM

I also wonder at how "marriageable" these girls would have been ultimately. Alexei's hemophelia was a big secret, but at some point it would have been revealed, particularly if he had died young. At about the same time Victoria Eugenie of Spain began bearing children, some of them sons with the disease. Her husband flipped out and always blamed her. Once royal courts realized that any or all of these four girls could be carriers of the dread disease, or if the first one married and bore a hemopheliac son, the remaining girls would not have had many offers IMO.

XeniaCasaraghi · #**308** 05-27-2012, 07:36 PM

If you knew anything about my opinions about the murders of the Romanovs you would know that I hate the bastards for what they did and sympathize completely with the Romanov family and the servants who went to their death with them. What I am saying is that in hindsight the family was so close and attached to each other that they could barely function without each other. I don't even want to imagine the pain one survivor would have suffered knowing they are alive and alone while their entire family is dead. This was in no way a mercy killing, the children were slaughtered because of the sins of their parents and forefathers. From what I have read the children did not want to leave their parents and they all wanted to be together and face the future. A family that was as close as they were, it wound have been horrible for one or a few to live on knowing the rest were dead.

To PrincessPeach
I don't know if the girls would have been viewed by other royal houses as not worthy of taking the chance. During Victoria's days some RFs felt it was worth the chance to make a good royal match. I can't say for sure if that attitude had fully expired by the late 1900's. Some families still might be willing to take the chance.

Princess Peach · #**309** 05-27-2012, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

I don't know if the girls would have been viewed by other royal houses as not worthy of taking the chance. During Victoria's days some RFs felt it was worth the chance to make a good royal match. I can't say for sure if that attitude had fully expired by the late 1900's. Some families still might be willing to take the chance.

I'm not sure if the royal houses knew of Victoria's gene, or understood it completely. Leopold was the only child of Victoria's who had it, he was born in 1853. Her daughters started marrying in the late 1850's and early 1860's. Unlike today, I'm not sure if his hemophelia would really have been known or if people really understood how it was passed down. It's not the sort of thing people would talk about - all disabilities in those days were hidden as shameful. Even when one of Princess Alice's sons died of a hemorrhage in the early 1870's, I'm not sure that they necessarily knew what it was. I think that the condition and it's causes was more of a gradual realization.

Had Alexander and Marie Feodorovna fully understood hemophelia and how it was passed down, I don't believe they EVER would have allowed Nicholas to marry her. They didn't like her in the first place, and would have jumped on this.

Countessa · #**310** 08-01-2012, 02:15 PM

who is the king of france

Countessa · #**311** 08-01-2012, 02:19 PM

I agree little of you understand what romanof menas

Artemisia · #**312** 08-01-2012, 02:24 PM

There is no King of France because France is a republic. There are various pretenders though, and you can read about them here.
And I'm afraid I don't understand your other comment - or the one you made in the Duke and Duchess of Kent marriage thread.

Stefanie · #**313** 10-31-2012, 01:24 AM

When they had to make DNA-Tests to find out who is who was it accidentaly able to find out which of the four daughters had the haemophilia gen?

Meraude · #**314** 11-02-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Peach

I'm not sure if the royal houses knew of Victoria's gene, or understood it completely. Leopold was the only child of Victoria's who had it, he was born in 1853. Her daughters started marrying in the late 1850's and early 1860's. Unlike today, I'm not sure if his hemophelia would really have been known or if people really understood how it was passed down. It's not the sort of thing people would talk about - all disabilities in those days were hidden as shameful. Even when one of Princess Alice's sons died of a hemorrhage in the early 1870's, I'm not sure that they necessarily knew what it was. I think that the condition and it's causes was more of a gradual realization.

Had Alexander and Marie Feodorovna fully understood hemophelia and how it was passed down, I don't believe they EVER would have allowed Nicholas to marry her. They didn't like her in the first place, and would have jumped on this.

The knowledge that haemophilia could be passed on from a nonaffected woman to her affected sons were known already in 1803, and that affected men could pass on hemophilia through nonaffected daughters to their sons were described in 1813 in the New England Journal of Medicine, see Haemophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , so there were a knowledge among doctors that some families were affected by the disease, whether that was known among royal families is another matter.

historyfreak · #**315** 11-07-2012, 07:52 AM

I doubt that it would have bother Nicholas if he knew Alexandra was a carrier of haemophilia because at the time she was the only woman he wanted to marry and I suspect nothing would have changed his mind about her.

Duchess Marie · #**316** 06-23-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefanie

When they had to make DNA-Tests to find out who is who was it accidentaly able to find out which of the four daughters had the haemophilia gen?

I read that Maria was a possible Haemophilia carrier, it was said that during a operation to remove her tonsils she bleed more then average and suffered a hemorrhage.

Molly2101 · #**317** 06-23-2013, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess Marie

I read that Maria was a possible Haemophilia carrier, it was said that during a operation to remove her tonsils she bleed more then average and suffered a hemorrhage.

I read that as well.

I don't think Nicholas would not have married Alix even if he had known, as historyfreak stated. He loved her and wanted to marry her, and only her, and nothing would have changed that. Not even his parents dislike of his choice of bride, or her possible inherited conditions!

Duchess Marie · #**318** 06-24-2013, 04:32 AM

Alexandra and Nicholas where deeply in love with each other but Nicky was a weak ruler and Alexandra was the more dominant one, I think that the Russian people hated that, not to mention her obsession with keeping Alexei safe. Anyways new pictures posted on Tumblr! :) I love them so much already!

AristoCat · #**319** 06-24-2013, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by historyfreak

I doubt that it would have bother Nicholas if he knew Alexandra was a carrier of haemophilia because at the time she was the only woman he wanted to marry and I suspect nothing would have changed his mind about her.

Supposedly Alexandra knew that it would be a possibility and was aware of how evident it was in her family.

Archduchess Zelia · #**320** 06-24-2013, 08:26 PM

I think they both knew the risk, took it and hoped for the best. They were just unfortunate. IIRC, I remember having read that the majority of the four girls showed signs of being carriers of haemophilia. So compared to someone like Queen Victoria who "only" passed it along to three of her nine children, it really was tough luck that Alix passed it along to four or all of her five children.