The extent of Alexandra's responsibility for the fate of the dynasty - Page 2

AristoCat · #21 07-23-2011, 01:15 AM

Victoria was against the match from the start, believing that Alexandra would not be able to keep her head among all the grandeur and she was right. Alexandra came back a lot more 'grand' as Victoria suspected and she (Victoria) didn't see the Russian throne as stable.

Throw in a small tiff between herself and Alexander III (Victoria didn't want to approve of his daughter Grand Duchess Marie until she had met her and the then-Tsar didn't want his daughter inspected like a racehorse), there wasn't a lot of love between the two dynasties.

XeniaCasaraghi · #22 07-24-2011, 12:37 AM

It sucks that Victoria was right, that the Russian throne was unstable. It sucks that there is no more Imperial Russia because dang was it a sight to see.
This isn't the full idea, but I recall reading in some book about Victoria and Albert that after Princess Victoria became a widow she felt she had failed her father by not succeeding in bringing liberal ideas to Germany. That her son was in the clutches of conservatives and that she feared they would lead Germany to ruin. I wonder how it was that Alexandra took zero influence from her grandmother a constitutional monarch.
I understand where Nicholas got his liberalism = evil ideas, but what the heck happened to Alix.
BTW just to clarify, I am not saying that Alexandra holds all the blame for what happened, just asking for the single person of Alexandra and her actions, do you blame her.

AristoCat · #23 07-24-2011, 10:00 PM

I think Alexandra brought a lot of complications into an already dangerous political situation in Russia. At that point in time, the right Consort could have properly influenced Nicholas to make the right choices and could have kept the Romanovs in line and then ended up thwarting the Revolution. But Alexandra did the opposite.

Vasillisos Markos · #24 07-24-2011, 11:40 PM

And Alexandra fell into the wrong belief that the Russian people needed a "firm" hand to protect and lead them. I believe she isolated Nicholas and her family from the very people who could advise them properly on how to rule and therefore, she (and Rasputin) knew what was needed to be done and acted accordingly.

AristoCat · #25 07-25-2011, 12:02 AM

Exactly, she looked at the Russian peasants as a bunch of savages with an infantile mindset. Contrary to what she might have though, Russians love their children too and if you or I had to see our children starve to death and be treated with indifference or patronized by our leaders, surely we would hate the Imperial Family too.

Cory · #26 08-04-2011, 07:03 PM

Empress Alexandra was a very strong orthodox who believed in a divine mission of the throne.She did not understand much of parlamentary system and estranged the Tsar from the rest of the Imperial Family.

shari-aree · #27 08-04-2011, 10:44 PM

Can I 'blame her a little bit' ... it feels bad saying judging her but I also believe - like in soooo many other Royal cases - the people around them are very responsible too!

AristoCat · #28 08-04-2011, 10:50 PM

Quote:

.She did not understand much of parlamentary system

How could she not? She grew up in Hesse and she also mixed with the British royals almost all the time and understood it very well I'm sure.

XeniaCasaraghi · #29 08-04-2011, 11:01 PM

Ok just to veer off the title, do you think that Alexandra was just surrounded by bad omens? First I think they should have postponed the wedding, she was a funeral bride like her mother; but in Russia such a thing seems to have more meaning so I think they should have postponed the wedding. Then the 4 daughters in succession in a country that doesn't let women succeed. Apparently also it was some kind of tradition that the first child born was always a boy; and with Alexandra it was 4 girls back to back. Then when she finally has a son, he has hemophilia.

AristoCat · #30 08-04-2011, 11:17 PM

I think Alexandra was in many ways just unable to do anything right in Russia; some of it was her fault, but the rest of it was mainly that she was out of step with the Russian people and Russian society. She also made the mistake of squandering the chances she did have to get in touch with Russian society and then eventually the Russian people. It was not her fault that her own mother-in-law actually made things more difficult, but she should have been spending her spare time studying the etiquette and understanding that she had an obligation to invite her new family over for luncheons, dinners, and other events and at least try to keep some sort of interaction going. They could have helped and they could have kept her going as part of an excellent support system.

There were omens, but at the same time, omens don't really determine destiny or make you do things when you have choices. Alix and Nicholas were also fatalists at heart and that was a huge part in their inability or unwillingness to take steps to save themselves and the Romanovs.

Iluvbertie · #31 08-04-2011, 11:58 PM

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 · #32 08-05-2011, 01:14 AM

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 · #33 08-05-2011, 01:56 AM

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 · #34 08-05-2011, 01:58 AM

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.

Quote:

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 · #35 08-05-2011, 05:42 AM

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

AristoCat · #36 08-05-2011, 07:05 AM

No, she didn't.

Vasillisos Markos · #37 08-05-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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 · #38 08-05-2011, 03:12 PM

But now she is declared saint by the Orthodox Church.

Al_bina · #39 08-05-2011, 03:23 PM

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

Tsaritsa · #40 08-05-2011, 03:23 PM

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.