Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918) - Page 21

AristoCat · #**401** 07-05-2011, 08:24 PM

Why thank you Russo-phile. In the Greg King book, the Dowager Empress was often beside herself at how Alix was constantly pushing the people away and acting imperious. Criticism of Alexandra is not blasphemous since she was a deeply flawed woman who had no real understanding of her role and it's requirements. It's not a real trial to wear gowns, jewels, and enjoy dancing and running around the nation greeting her subjects who just wanted the chance to have a solid life and future for their children.

Communism succeeded because there was a revolution on the way and it just needed a name and a clarification of the grievances and the Bolsheviks made the Russian people believe they were worth more than jsut serfs/slaves to break their backs to make money for the Russian royals to spend on fun things. God (however perverse this sounds) actually may have been on the side of the Bolsheviks since God is never on the side of a failing regime. With their constant dabbling in the occult, I would admit the Romanovs forgot God at that point.

XeniaCasaraghi · #**402** 07-05-2011, 09:16 PM

I can't remember and my Nicholas*Alexandra book is lost in a box full of books; but how well known was it at this time that the women in Victoria's family were likely carriers of the haemophilia? I know that one thing Marie had against Nicholas marrying Alexandra was she felt she wasn't suited to be an Empress of Russia. But was it brought up at the time that any sons Alix had would probably be born sick and die young?

AristoCat · #**403** 07-05-2011, 10:19 PM

Alix surely knew there was a chance since like Queen Victoria, she carried the gene inside that resulted in infection for several of her male relatives. Second, back then there wasn't a lot of genetic testing for anyone, so it's not like there was a chance that they could perform tests. Only one of Victoria's sons ended up infected and the rest healthy, so I think Alexandra could have had a healthy boy.

XeniaCasaraghi · #**404** 07-06-2011, 12:22 AM

So essentially because there wasn't much known about it they took a gamble which unfortunately didn't pay off. Perhaps she either did not know that there was a chance that future sons could be like Victoria's; or she just wasn't willing to take the chance.

AristoCat · #**405** 07-06-2011, 12:30 AM

Nicholas might not have listened. In the Massie book, it mentions that kings were wonderfully protected from unpleasant realities.

AristoCat · #**406** 07-06-2011, 12:33 AM

I find it ironic that Nicholas was so terrified of being who he became, but then refused to give it up.

Russophile · #**407** 07-06-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Nicholas might not have listened. In the Massie book, it mentions that kings were wonderfully protected from unpleasant realities.

That's the only thing that Nicky stood up to his father and mother about: his marriage to Alix. It was Alix or nothing. Should have been nothing. As an aside, Princess victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (aka Queen Ena of Spain) was also a carrier of haemophilia. Alfonso knew there was a great chance of this and insisted upon marrying her anyway.

AristoCat · #**408** 07-06-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

That's the only thing that Nicky stood up to his father and mother about: his marriage to Alix. It was Alix or nothing. Should have been nothing.

Crown Princes who pull that kind of thing should be dragged out of their palaces and horsewhipped for pulling something like that on their parents, who are also their Sovereigns. Alexander and Marie both knew that Alexandra was unsuited to the life and knew she would fail at the role.

XeniaCasaraghi · #**409** 07-06-2011, 10:45 PM

Well abdication wasn't a new thing in Russia at that time, and its not like Alexander didn't have other sons. Nicholas wanted to throw a hissy fit over Alexandria then let him leave. BTW didnt Russia have a tradition of the Tsar choosing their successor?

Russophile · #**410** 07-06-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Well abdication wasn't a new thing in Russia at that time, and its not like Alexander didn't have other sons. Nicholas wanted to throw a hissy fit over Alexandria then let him leave. BTW didnt Russia have a tradition of the Tsar choosing their successor?

Pauline law dictated it was the first male heir. Besides, Georgie was sick (too bad, I heard he would have been a good ruler) and Michael was running around having romances with Baby Bea and others.

XeniaCasaraghi · #**411** 07-06-2011, 10:53 PM

Can't remember the year George died, but I still say Michael could have taken Nicholas' place, that was what they tried to do in 1917. And if not a son, then a nephew or one of his brothers. In long long long time ago Russia, the throne would pass from the Grand Duke to his brother before his sons. I'm just throwing out hypotheticals that could have happened instead of Nicholas' temper tantrum winning out.
BTW Alexandra and Nicholas did really love each other; so do you still think he should have been prevented from marrying her even if it was true love but had a hand in the ruin of the country?

Russophile · #**412** 07-06-2011, 10:59 PM

He could have married her and abdicated. Become the farmer he wanted to be. Funny thing, Michael was actually a better farmer than his brother. According to the Crawford book, his estate increased itself and profits yearly. Michael streamlined everything and made it work. Had Michael married Baby Bea, he might have been Tsar. However he was chasing after women who were unsuitable. Grand Duke Dmitri was also in love with Natasha, don't forget. Michael was not happy with that when he was at the front and "Lily of the valley" came calling.
Lots of hypothesis. Too bad nobody has a time machine and can go back and find out the what if's.

AristoCat · #**413** 07-07-2011, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

BTW Alexandra and Nicholas did really love each other; so do you still think he should have been prevented from marrying her even if it was true love but had a hand in the ruin of the country?

Well, that is why royals have never married for love, because it's their countries that had to be taken into consideration. Reputation, treaties, dowries, etc. have all been the first factors considered, not the last. If Nicholas had married a more sociable woman and had a much more healthy genetic pattern, the Romanovs may have survived and then go figure, revolution would have been averted.

I wasn't supposed to be about Nicholas, but about Russia and what was best for the Russians. Hewas royalty and that is one of the few prices you have to pay for as a future Sovereign.

EmpressRouge · #**414** 07-07-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

He could have married her and abdicated. Become the farmer he wanted to be. Funny thing, Michael was actually a better farmer than his brother. According to the Crawford book, his estate increased itself and profits yearly. Michael streamlined everything and made it work. Had Michael married Baby Bea, he might have been Tsar. However he was chasing after women who were unsuitable. Grand Duke Dmitri was also in love with Natasha, don't forget. Michael was not happy with that when he was at the front and "Lily of the valley" came calling.
Lots of hypothesis. Too bad nobody has a time machine and can go back and find out the what if's.

Did Nicholas have to abdicate to marry Alix? I mean, it wasn't like she was insufficient royal rank (his grandmother Marie Alexandrovna came from the House of Hesse, too). Or was it because you had to have the Tsar's approval to marry anyone, royal or not?

PrincessKaimi · #**415** 07-07-2011, 02:05 PM

Russophile, it's interesting to here your take on the role that the tsarevich's hemophilia played in the Russian Revolution. Obviously, it's a tangled web, but it's an interesting thread to pull out.

Seldom has a genetic illness had such an effect on history. I suppose it was widely known and gossiped about, too (the illness). While today we very much take genetics as its own explanation, I'm guessing that at the time, people must have lost faith in both the Tsar and God as a result.

Russophile · #**416** 07-07-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

Did Nicholas have to abdicate to marry Alix? I mean, it wasn't like she was insufficient royal rank (his grandmother Marie Alexandrovna came from the House of Hesse, too). Or was it because you had to have the Tsar's approval to marry anyone, royal or not?

No he didn't and he married her. He had to have the Tsar's approval however and stood firm. Alexander III wasn't long for this world at the time and gave it. Alix was of equal rank. Her mother was Queen Victoria's daughter, no matter Victoria had to marry her children into lesser principalities. On Alice's marriage Victoria issued letters patent to style Alix's father Royal Highness. So he was HRH.
Remember when Ducky and Kyril married Nicky wouldn't give his approval until the whole Vladimirolivitchi clan came down on him and he relented. Michael and Natasha felt his wrath as well. Poor little George Brassov was illigitimate (sorry for the spelling errors, my ADD/Dyslexia is acting up on this God-forsaken diet I am on! Not enough protein!) until then.
Boris was running around having an affair with Queen Marie of Rumania, Andrei and Sergei Mikhalovitch were playing house with Mathilda Kscessinskaya--Nicky has his hands full. And they walked on him. They wouldn't have ever dared to walk all over Alexander III.

Vasillisos Markos · #**417** 07-07-2011, 11:54 PM

I am not even sure that Queen Victoria had to raise her son-in-law's rank to royal in order for Nicky to properly marry Alix. Interesting question--could Victoria do that to someone who was not her subject? Anyway, wasn't the House of Hesse Darmstadt mediatized? I think that means that the Grand Duke was the highest in his land when it was independent and thus his rank was royal, as was his children, and therefore there was no impediment for marrriage to Alix after she was willing to convert and Nicky's parents gave their approval.

AristoCat · #**418** 07-08-2011, 12:12 AM

I think they would have been a nice enough couple if they had been middle class or of the nobility. The problem is that as Empress, she really held her husband back and ended up interfering. If she had been more sociable and less of a reverse snob, she would have ended up in a better place. If she had spent so much time around the Russian people that she claimed to revere so much, she would not have needed the nobility as much as she would have in the event of a revolution. Her problem is her narrow minded morality; the Russian Court was filled with scandal, but really, it's not like any royal court is filled with perfect morality.

Even Queen Victoria was against the match and she saw the Russian throne as unstable and had an inkling that Alexandra would not avoid changing into what she became. Alexandra also raised her daughters under her firm iron control, holding back their growth and maturity and at one point, snubbing a marriage suit proposed by Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna (for Marie's son Boris) because of the fast life Boris led. With Alix it was all about control, not growth or their mental health.

Vasillisos Markos · #**419** 07-08-2011, 12:24 AM

My dear AristoCat,

I concur in much of what you write. I don't know that Queen Victoria worried about what Alix might change into so much as Victoria disliked the Russians in general and the Romanovs in particular. She was very distressed when Ella married into the family and more so with Alix, although Victoria liked Nicky. One thing she did do: after seeing the richness of Alix's engagement gifts from the Russian Royal Family, Victoria said, "Now Alix, don't get so proud"

The old queen might also have suspected that her granddaughter was not suited to be the consort of an autocrat. History shows that Alexandra was an appalling empress and made horrible missteps from the moment she entered into marriage with Nicholas.

AristoCat · #**420** 07-08-2011, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Remember when Ducky and Kyril married Nicky wouldn't give his approval until the whole Vladimirolivitchi clan came down on him and he relented. Michael and Natasha felt his wrath as well. Poor little George Brassov was illigitimate (sorry for the spelling errors, my ADD/Dyslexia is acting up on this God-forsaken diet I am on! Not enough protein!) until then.
Boris was running around having an affair with Queen Marie of Rumania, Andrei and Sergei Mikhalovitch were playing house with Mathilda Kscessinskaya--Nicky has his hands full. And they walked on him. They wouldn't have ever dared to walk all over Alexander III.

Which is what led to the collapse. Hard enough to keep an empire going, but when his family was ripping itself to shreds, how he managed to keep going for so long is really beyond me. If the Romanovs had been more supportive of Nicholas (and if Alexandra hadn't alienated them) there would have been a solid base of support for Nicholas to lean on when he needed the help. It should have been Alexandra's job to keep them together and invite them all over frequently (the Romanovs were a clannish family and were used to frequent invitations to lunch/dinner) and not pizz them all off, which she did quite well.