The extent of Alexandra's responsibility for the fate of the dynasty

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

My big "what if" is what would've have happened if Alexander III continued with his father's reforms rather than repudiated them. Alexander does fit the bill as a strong, competent and ruthless leader, and I think that if Russia had continued on the trajectory that they were on with Alexander II then perhaps the Russian Revolution would have been prevented, or if not prevented, then it may have been less cataclysmic.

That is a great "what if"....or what if those -%+#(& hadn't killed Alexander II. Out of all the Romanovs he seemed to be the one who was most willing to change and progress. ALEXANDER III seemed to be what people think of when they hear autocrat but his son wasn't. As has been stated before he was more suited for a constitutional monarch.

[COUNTESS]

Many have stated many true things. Nicholas was unable to make a good decision and was weak and manipulated by his "wifey". She had this need to keep the autocracy going, not just for her husband but her son. They were a pathetic pair of autocratic rulers, as they had no concept of the misery of their subjects lives. And they were bigoted and self centered.

[victor1319]

"She had this need to keep the autocracy going, not just for her husband but her son."

I am wondering, if the Empress was not just overcompensating for her failure to give birth to a healthy heir.

Wikipedia claims, back then life expectancy with haemophilia was just 11 years - she probably knew that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia#Prognosis

On the other hand the empress was quite silly, if you think about the Rasputin affair. So she might have had some hopes for the survival of her son, which faded with the end of Rasputin, what might have led to her attempts to govern, to make up for her "shortcomings".

But what is most strange: Her inability to "produce" a male heir would not have been the end of the Romanov rule - they were a big family with a lot of kids. Somebody else from a different branch could have become Emperor.

[Denville]

But in the times they were living in, with demand for reform, and Nich and Alexandra being so unable or unwilling to cope with those times.. and of course the fear of a war which might also cause upheavals.. I think that if the public had known that Alexie was in bad health and miht not live.. revolutionary feeling might grown and grow and the public would just become generally hostile to the Imp Family and not want to accept a cousin as an heir....

[Denville]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

MThey were a pathetic pair of autocratic rulers, as they had no concept of the misery of their subjects lives. And they were bigoted and self centered.

I don't think they were unaware of the misery of their subjects' lives but they didn't perhaps know what to do about it.. or believed that poverty was good for the soul and the Russian peasants were loyal to their "Litltte Father" and didn't want reform...

[Queen Claude]

If everything else was running smoothly and cooler heads prevailed, I don't think that not having a male heir would have jeopardized the Russia monarchy. There were two options, either have the nearest male relative inherit, or Nicholas could have changed the rules and declared his oldest daughter his heir. Russia had female emperors in the past, including Catherine the Great, who was not even born into the Russian Imperial family, rather she married into it. The rule where only males can inherit came about because a previous tsar wanted it to be that way and declared it so, Nicholas, in turn, could gave exercised his autocratic prerogative and named Olga his heir.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If everything else was running smoothly and cooler heads prevailed, I don't think that not having a male heir would have jeopardized the Russia monarchy. There were two options, either have the nearest male relative inherit, or Nicholas could have changed the rules and declared his oldest daughter his heir. Russia had female emperors in the past, including Catherine the Great, who was not even born into the Russian Imperial family, rather she married into it. The rule where only males can inherit came about because a previous tsar wanted it to be that way and declared it so, Nicholas, in turn, could gave exercised his autocratic prerogative and named Olga his heir.

Ture but times were not good. I think that had Nicholas II been a more successful and less autocratic ruler, even if it wasnt' a fully democratic constitutional monarchy, and there had been less poverty, no wars in the offing etc.. his not having a healthy son would have been less of a problem. The Throne cuodl have gone to a cousin, or to Olga.. and it would have been OK, but times were bad. There was unrest, anger at the failure of reform, at the poverty.. and Russia's being so behind the rest of the world.. and people were less likely to calmly accept that the Emperor didn't have a male heir and then didn't have a male heir who was healthy and likely to produce heirs himself...

[Queen Claude]

I actually prefaced my comment with, "if everything else was running smoothly" but my conjecture is that the issue of Nicholas not producing a male heir, in and of itself, would not have been hugely destabilizing. Avid monarchists tend to accept the mystery and divine aspects of the monarchy, I just can't imagine that the people who would show up to gawk at royals, and who have their pictures in their homes, would stop supporting the monarchy because Nicholas did not produce a male heir. To the extent stability matters, then the best move would be to name Olga as the heir.

[Jackswife]

In my mind, the question of "blame" is answered that there was plenty of it to go around. There were definitely a lot of factors in the fall of the Romanovs and Alexandra was only one of them. I don't think either she or Nicholas were capable or trained to be the kind of ruler Russia needed at the time, and the addition of Rasputin was yet another toxic addition to the mix that was already brewing when Alexei was born. In a sense the country was doomed from the start of Nicholas' reign. I've always thought that if history had gone another way and Vladimir and Miechen had been enthroned, there probably still would have been a lot of issues coming to prominence but they would have been dealt with in a more reasonable fashion (and of course the likes of Rasputin wouldn't have gotten within 10 miles of the Imperial Palace). Very interesting to speculate about this.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by Denville

I don't think they were unaware of the misery of their subjects' lives but they didn't perhaps know what to do about it.. or believed that poverty was good for the soul and the Russian peasants were loyal to their "Litltte Father" and didn't want reform...

I don't believe for many writings that they had a vague idea of the way in which the peasants, actually lived. What squalor and difficulties. You can only know if you go out and seek and talk, personally to many who live that way and those who knew the conditions. They never did that. They convinced themselves that the real peasants "loved them" and needed to be ruled with an iron hand. What great reforms to they make? How did they better the lives of the millions who lived under them? They did nothing. They could have educated themselves, they didn't. They kept a closed wall around their lives. They were ripe for revolution.

[Mbruno]

However flawed “Nicky and Willy” might have been personally, I doubt that either the Russian or the German monarchies would have been overthrown if World War I had never happened.

[Curryong]

Germany, maybe. I'm not so sure about Russia, as internal problems for at least twenty years had encouraged the growth of revolutionary groups. However I think any overthrow may well have been retarded for a while.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Germany, maybe. I'm not so sure about Russia, as internal problems for at least twenty years had encouraged the growth of revolutionary groups. However I think any overthrow may well have been retarded for a while.

Germany was not democratic by a long chalk but it was a highly sophisticated society and political entity, compared to Russia. without the War, I think Germany might have gradually modernised and would not have overthrown the Kaiser. Russia I Honestly don't know.